- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 21:14:55 -0500
- To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D45CFF32.C1D76%irene@topquadrant.com>
Several W3C specs use the words Œdefine¹, Œdescribe¹ and Œspecify¹ without saying what these words mean. They also, at times, use them interchangeably. For example, I think in the following passage from RDFS spec, Œdefine¹ and Œdescribe¹ are used interchangeably: > "rdfs:isDefinedBy is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to indicate a > resource defining the subject resource. This property may be used to indicate > an RDF vocabulary in which a resource is described. > > A triple of the form: > > S rdfs:isDefinedBy O > > states that the resource O defines S.² > The word Œdeclare¹ or its derivation such as Œdeclaration¹ is used more rarely, but there is some usage. For example, in the RDFS spec: > > "Although it is possible to combine use rdfs:domain and rdfs:range with > sub-property hierarchies, direct support for such declarations are provided by > richer Web Ontology languages such as OWL.² OWL spec also makes an extensive use of words Œdefine¹ or Œdescribe¹ without defining them. However, it attempts to define something called Œclass description¹ and Œclass definition¹ e.g., in https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/: > "A class description is the term used in this document (and in the OWL > Semantics and Abstract Syntax) for the basic building blocks of class axioms > (informally called class definitions in the Overview and Guide documents). A > class description describes an OWL class, either by a class name or by > specifying the class extension of an unnamed anonymous class.² And in https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ > Class Definitioninformal term for an owl:Class elementClass > Descriptiondescribes an OWL class, either by a class name or by specifying a > class extension of an unnamed anonymous class The specification makes an extensive use of the phrase ³class description². With this, I question the need to formally define words such as ³define², ³describe², etc. because all other specs seem to rely on the common sense interpretation of these words. It may be useful to define ³shape description² and/or ³shape definition'. This could also help to resolve Issue-209. Irene Polikoff On 11/24/16, 3:22 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > I would advise choosing only one of them, and removing "sometimes" from > the statement, which makes it something you cannot rely on - in other > words, are they used other times for something else? is something else > sometimes used in their place?: > > "(In this document, the verbs <em>specify</em> or <em>declare</em> are > sometimes used to express the fact that a node has property values in a > graph.)" > > I haven't read through the uses at this point. > > kc > > On 11/23/16 9:11 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> I have gone through the whole document, replacing most usages of >> "define" with either "specify" or "declare". I have also added >> definitions of these two terms to the beginning of the document: >> >> >> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/92407af35824a7100845b4a84884c86de08 >> 6b9d7 >> >> Holger >> >> >> On 19/11/2016 2:15, Irene Polikoff wrote: >>> I would use "specified" for the second meaning of "defined". I think >>> "declared" would work as well. "Described" - may be, but would not be >>> my first choice. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:21 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue >>> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>> wrote: >>> >>> shapes-ISSUE-197 (Defined ): "Defined" and "declared" used in >>> multiple ways, and not defined [SHACL Spec] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/197 >>> <http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/197> >>> >>> Raised by: Karen Coyle >>> On product: SHACL Spec >>> >>>> >From Peter's email [1]: >>> >>> "Constraints are defined within a shape" >>> >>> "Defined within" is not defined. >>> >>> "Constraints that declare more than one parameters, such as >>> sh:pattern, are >>> not allowed to be declared more than once in the same constraint." >>> >>> The first two uses of "declare" come from section 6.2. A core >>> definition is >>> needed. >>> >>> The last use of "declared" is not defined. >>> >>> "declare" is used for many different purposes, most of them undefined. >>> >>> ******* More analysis ******* >>> The use of defined in its normal sense of "having a definition" is >>> ok. Example: >>> >>> "The parameter name is defined as the local name of the value of >>> sh:predicate." >>> >>> The use of defined to mean something like "takes as a value" or >>> "is coded as" is less clear: >>> >>> "Property constraints are defined in a shape with the property >>> sh:property." >>> "Based on the parameter IRIs on the tables, pre-bound variables >>> are defined using the parameter names." >>> >>> In some cases, the term "declare" is used in the same way as the >>> second meaning of define: >>> " Constraint components declare one or more parameter properties >>> and validation instructions (such as those implemented as SPARQL >>> queries) that can be used to perform the validation for the given >>> focus node and parameter values." >>> >>> Suggest: >>> - use "defined" for "is given a definition or meaning in this or >>> other texts >>> - do not use "declare" >>> - find a more precise term for the second meaning of "defined" >>> that specifically addresses the creation of properties and values, >>> regardless of how "definitional" they are. >>> >>> (Note how this is used in the SKOS document: "Therefore, while >>> SKOS can be used to describe a concept scheme, SKOS does not >>> provide any mechanism to completely define a concept scheme." >>> Could "describe" be used for this second meaning of "define"? That >>> still seems imprecise for the specific cases in SHACL.) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 > >
Received on Friday, 25 November 2016 02:15:35 UTC