- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:08:39 -0700
- To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I did suggest a change where I thought that a particular word would be better. I also asked whether there was some particular role for the current word being used just in case my analysis was incorrect. Were I did not understand why a particular wording was being used I asked whether there were alternative uses of the vocabulary term, which would have necessitated the wording being used. There are several vocabulary terms that have multiple uses, e.g., sh:predicate, which has at least three different uses and two of them are in constraints. Without knowing why a wording is being used I cannot make a suggestion on what wording to use. peter On 04/12/2016 02:17 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > I have to agree with Irene on that one. It's always better to make suggestions > for improvements when reporting problems. If you're not sure what is intended, > try to propose something that makes sense to you. > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM Cloud > > > Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote on 04/08/2016 04:37:51 PM: > >> From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> >> To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Holger >> Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org> >> Date: 04/08/2016 04:39 PM >> Subject: Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): >> sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available >> [SHACL - Core] >> >> Peter, >> >> I think, it would save a lot of time and effort, if you just recommended >> the language for the passages. Otherwise, this goes into a lengthy, >> ineffective and antagonistic loop of ³this is not right, this is an >> improvement, but still some issues, this is better but not quite Š² and so >> on. >> >> For example, instead of writing >> >> Most of the descriptions read strangely. For example, "The property >> sh:nodeKind can be used to restrict the node kind of all value nodes." >> What >> is the role of "all" here? The first sentence for sh:class uses "each", >> which >> is much better. Why is there a "can be" there? Are there alternative >> validation uses for sh:nodeKind? >> >> >> >> You could say >> >> Please change this passage to: >> >> "The property >> sh:nodeKind is used to restrict the node kind of each value node." >> >> >> Unless there are multiple possible validation uses of sh:nodeKind, ³is² is >> clearer than ³can be². >> >> Regards, >> >> Irene >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4/8/16, 2:49 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >I assume you are referring to the changes at the beginning of the section >> >and >> >subsequent use of "value nodes". I am limiting these comments to parts of >> >this >> >bit that are relevant to ISSUE-132. >> > >> >There are some problems that probably can be fixed with a little editing. >> > The >> >constraint is the node that is the subject of the constraint component >> >triples. This means that constraint components are not property >> >constraints >> >so the wording in and just before the first bullet list is incorrect. >> > >> >What are sh:subject, sh:predicate, and sh:object for node constraints? >> > >> >Most of the descriptions read strangely. For example, "The property >> >sh:nodeKind can be used to restrict the node kind of all value nodes." >> >What >> >is the role of "all" here? The first sentence for sh:class uses "each", >> >which >> >is much better. Why is there a "can be" there? Are there alternative >> >validation uses for sh:nodeKind? >> > >> >The textual definition for sh:minCount does not indicate that the number >> >is >> >the number for a given focus node. >> > >> >Overall this is a decided improvement, and appears to satisfactorily >> >address >> >ISSUE-132. >> > >> > >> >When reading through this section I noticed several problems and create >> >new >> >issues for them. >> > >> >peter >> > >> > >> > >> >On 04/07/2016 11:48 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> >> I have meanwhile reworked chapter 3 so that it can be understood for >> >>all three >> >> contexts. Peter, could you check if this ISSUE-132 is now addressed? >> >> >> >> Holger >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8/03/2016 10:03, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> >>> Yes, this aspect of the spec really needs a thorough update. The whole >> >>> structure still assumes Property Constraints only. I had been waiting >> >>>on the >> >>> resolution to the metamodel before cleaning this generalization up. I >> >>>had >> >>> put a red TODO block above the table in 3.1 to clarify this >> >>>construction site. >> >>> >> >>> Note that this chapter is work in progress to implement the resolution >> >>>to >> >>> ISSUE-98. In a nutshell, these constraint types can be used either at >> >>> sh:constraint (to apply to the focus node itself), at sh:property (to >> >>>apply >> >>> to all values of a given property), or at sh:inverseProperty (to apply >> >>>to >> >>> all inverse values of a given property). Which combinations are >> >>>supported is >> >>> summarized in the following table. The flow of the sub-sections needs >> >>>to be >> >>> adjusted and generalized accordingly. >> >>> >> >>> Holger >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 8/03/2016 9:51, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >>>> shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used >> >>>>in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] >> >>>> >> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/132 >> >>>> >> >>>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider >> >>>> On product: SHACL - Core >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The SHACL spec currently defines several constraints, including >> >>>>sh:class, >> >>>> with wording like >> >>>> >> >>>> ************** >> >>>> A validation result must be produced for each triple that has the >> >>>>focus node >> >>>> as its subject, the sh:predicate as its predicate and where ... >> >>>> ************** >> >>>> >> >>>> However, there might not be any predicate involved at all, for >> >>>>example where >> >>>> a sh:class is in a sh:constraint constraint in a shape that is >> >>>>invoked directly from a scope. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:09:08 UTC