ISSUE-142: SHACL spec is too loose with its uses of terminology
loose terminology
SHACL spec is too loose with its uses of terminology
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SHACL Spec
- Raised by:
- Peter Patel-Schneider
- Opened on:
- 2016-03-30
- Description:
- The SHACL spec is much too loose with its terminology.
The spec uses different terminology from SPARQL where it is using concepts
from SPARQL. For example, the SHACL spec uses "row" where SPARQL uses
"solution", and "value" where SPARQL uses "binding".
The spec uses different terminology from RDF where it is using concepts from
RDF. For example, the SHACL spec uses "resource" where RDF uses "node".
The spec uses terms that are not defined. For example, in Section 6.2.3
there is "value" and "count", but these terms are not defined. In multiple
places in the spec there is "value type", but that term is not defined.
The spec uses definite descriptions that do not have referents.. For example, in
Section 6.2.2 there occurs "the constraint node", but there is no
specification of what that might refer to.
The spec uses IRIs from the RDF and RDFS namespace in a way that appears to
be different from their use in RDF or RDFS. For example, rdfs:Resource is
used in contexts (e.g., Section 3.1.1) where it appears that the intent is
to restrict to IRIs, but that is not what rdfs:Resource means
in RDFS. However, there is no specification of what rdfs:Resource is
supposed to mean tthere.
There needs to be a comprehensive attempt to clean up the use of terminology
in the spec.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed (from markh@metarelate.net on 2016-10-19)
- Re: Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-09-23)
- Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-09-23)
- Re: Please review the SHACL draft (was Re: Editing progress) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-08-31)
- shapes-ISSUE-142 (loose terminology): SHACL spec is too loose with its uses of terminology [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2016-03-30)
Related notes:
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-142 as addressed by the Terminology section and its use throughout the document, separate issues should be raised against specific terminology issues
See http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#resolution07
In making the above resolution the WG acknowledged that there are remaining terminology issues but decided that it would be better to have separate, more specific issues than a single broad issue.
To that end the following action item was recorded:
<Arnaud> ACTION: marqh to take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed [on Mark Hedley - due 2016-10-04].
Display change log
