- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 09:51:00 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 4/11/2016 2:20, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > 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. In the example above, the sh:targetClass statement is - ignored if the AddressShape is reached as part of the sh:shape statement - not ignored if the whole data graph is validated, i.e. the "standard way" of using SHACL So if the shape is reached via sh:shape then the system does not test whether the given value of ex:address is also an instance of ex:Address (class). It could for example also be an untyped resource. sh:target never behaves like a constraint. (filterShape does). HTH Holger > > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2016 23:51:35 UTC