ISSUE-163: should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification

"constraining"

should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SHACL Spec

Raised by:

Peter Patel-Schneider

Opened on:

2016-05-19

Description:

Both internal and external reviews of the SHACL specification have indicated
that they have problems with the use of the word "constraining". One
option is to dramatically reduce the use of the various forms of
"constraint" in the spec.

See
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016May/0000.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016May/0004.html

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-09-23)
2. Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-09-23)
3. ISSUE-163 is done (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-09-21)
4. Re: Please review the SHACL draft (was Re: Editing progress) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-08-31)
5. Re: shapes-ISSUE-165 (shapes and scopes introduction): [EDITORIAL] The introduction of shapes and scopes has confused a reader [SHACL Spec] (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-05-22)
6. Re: shapes-ISSUE-165 (shapes and scopes introduction): [EDITORIAL] The introduction of shapes and scopes has confused a reader [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-22)
7. Re: shapes-ISSUE-163 ("constraining"): should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-20)
8. proposed reply to Tom Baker [was Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-05-19)
9. shapes-ISSUE-163 ("constraining"): should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2016-05-19)

Related notes:

Display change log