- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 23:54:06 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
The point of writing a specification of a language is to be precise. I find much of the wording in the current SHACL specification to be much too loose. Although I will not object to the current wording here, I do not view it as adequately precise to serve as the support for part of a W3C recommendation. peter On 04/28/2016 03:24 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Switched to "set of values": > > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/b74d71363cf44113fc4a77173106d492c30a94d5 > > Peter, please confirm that this addresses your issue. According to the newly > adopted adjustments to our WG process, editorial issues can be closed without > a formal WG resolution, i.e. either you or me could simply close the ticket > once we agree on a resolution, and there is no one else on the mailing list > with concerns. > > Also a friendly reminder to everyone that such issues should be accompanied > with a proposed fix if possible, or even a github diff. > > Thanks, > Holger > > > On 29/04/2016 4:07, Solbrig, Harold R., M.S. wrote: >> I'd strongly support that "set of values", as "value set" has a lot of >> additional conceptual baggage in the healthcare domain. >> >> From: Jim Amsden <<mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com>jamsden@us.ibm.com> >> Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM >> To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org >> <mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>> >> Subject: Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of >> sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined >> Resent-From: <<mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org> >> Resent-Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:48 AM >> >> A simple fix would be to change "value set" which is a noun that could >> introduce a term to "set of values". >> >> Instead of raising individual issues for these editorial changes, a better >> approach would be to include a set of them in a document review with >> proposed changes to address the concerns. >> >> >> Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member >> OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data >> 919-525-6575 >> >> >> >> >> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com >> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> >> To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org >> <mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>> >> Date: 04/28/2016 03:25 AM >> Subject: Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the >> description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is >> not defined >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> The term "value set" is used with its intuitive plain english meaning, >> based on the assumption that the reader knows what the team "value" of a >> property means. A value set is then simply the set of all values. How >> could this be misinterpreted by anyone? >> >> Holger >> >> >> On 28/04/2016 16:51, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> > shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and >> sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined >> > >> > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/154 >> > >> > Raised by: Dean Allemang >> > On product: >> > >> > There is no description or definition of "value set", which is used in the >> description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint. >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 29 April 2016 06:54:39 UTC