- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:20:25 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 11/2/16 10:53 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > > > On 3/11/2016 14:36, Karen Coyle wrote: >> >> >> On 11/2/16 5:20 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 3/11/2016 0:48, Karen Coyle wrote: >>>> As decided at the meeting: >>>> >>>> On 10/28/16 9:39 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: >>>>> *QUESTION 1: What does it mean for a target to be "processed" as a >>>>> value? It's the term "processed" here that is problematic. Perhaps an >>>>> example would help, and then we could tweak the language. >>>> >>>> Proposed: The target of a shape that is the value of another shape >>>> MUST be ignored. >>> >>> This isn't correct. This would also mean that target must be ignored >>> here: >>> >>> ex:PersonShape >>> sh:property [ >>> sh:predicate ex:address ; >>> sh:shape ex:AddressShape ; >>> ] . >>> >>> ex:AddressShape >>> sh:targetClass ex:Address . >>> >>> I have tried to explain before that this is a matter of context, and it >>> only is ignored at validation time, not always. >> >> The spec has to define that context, and so far it doesn't. Please >> show an example of a target that would be ignored, and I will try to >> find appropriate wording. > > See the example above. Yes, we could put an elaborated example like this > together with example instance data and validation results. The problem > is that this is coming a bit early in the document - why should the > first example about targets be one that ignores targets. I also honestly > don't think such a corner case deserves so much space. I think we could > even delete the "Targets MUST be ignored..." paragraph because it > already follows as an implication from elsewhere. See the first sentence > "A target provides *one way* to specify potential focus nodes...". Other > ways include explicitly referencing a shape via sh:shape. So what about > deleting the paragraph and adding something along the lines of what Eric > suggested last night, to elaborate on other ways of finding focus nodes > such as API calls? Holger, you have misunderstood my question. I am not asking for such an example to be added to the spec. I am asking for the example so that I can consider better wording. You say that the example above is one that should NOT be ignored. I am asking for an example of one that SHOULD be ignored, that illustrates the context you have cited. kc > > Anyway, now that I have given you an example, can you now rephrase the > paragraph about ignoring the target? > > Overall, we seem to continue to struggle with a different mindset about > the role of the spec here. I believe you want it to be longer and more > instructive, while currently it's rather compact and just mentions the > facts. You do not like this, but my viewpoint remains that this document > is not a tutorial. > > Holger > > > >> >> kc >> >>> >>>> >>>> (Alternate: The target *in* a shape... - I'm not sure what language we >>>> are using for the various components of shapes. It could be "The >>>> target that is a component of a shape ..." Any of those would be ok >>>> with me as long as we are consistent.) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> *QUESTION 2: Does "are" here mean "MUST"? (This is a question >>>>> throughout >>>>> the document, actually, wherever "are" is used in this way. Perhaps we >>>>> can decide once for all.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, MUST must be used here. >>> >>> I have switched to MUST. >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/06cd60457ec3448d7ca578c4aa3df324bea846f0 >>> >>> >>> >>> Could we close this ticket now? >>> >>> Holger >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2016 16:21:10 UTC