John, +1
I don't have any suggested improvements to this, I think what Arthur has is good and what you proposed improves it. Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 [email protected] wrote on 01/17/2012 09:40:27 AM: > From: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS > To: Arthur Ryman <[email protected]>, > Cc: [email protected] > Date: 01/17/2012 09:41 AM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Ambiguity in Resource Shape definition + consequentquestions > Sent by: [email protected] > > > I [Arthur] suggest this description: > > > > This shape describes resources that are of any of these types. That is, > > the shape applies to resources that are in the union of the types. Note > > that if a resource has multiple rdf:type properties then the resource is > > in the intersection of those types. Therefore a shape S applies to a > > resource R if R has a type T and there is a triple S oslc:describes T. > > Pretty good. I'm going to counter with some tweaks that I hope reduce > ambiguity in the natural language portion; the final sentence's more formal > version is great, and I'll tweak that to make it a bit more formal. The > union/intersection change is one to pay special attention to I suspect - " > resources that are in the union of the types" throws me for a loop. > > This shape describes resources that are of any of these types. That is, > > the shape applies to resources whose type(s) intersect with the shape's > described type(s). > > Formally, a shape S applies to a > > resource R if there is a triple R rdf:type T and there is a triple S > oslc:describes T. > > Since we agreed during the WG call that it is intentional and valid to have > zero oslc:describes triples in a shape (so the shape describes only > resources that explicitly link to it via a oslc:instanceShape triple), here > is a new (full replacement) proposal for the consequent editorial changes to [1]: > > Q2: (editorial change) > A Resource Shape describes the properties that are allowed or required by... > from: one type of resource . > to: one or more types or instances of resources. > I'm not entirely happy with that (seems a bit awkward still), > but I think it's accurate now so I claim 80-20 reached > and give license to the editor(s) to improve it. > > Q3: answered - 0 intentional, no change > > Q4: Another disagreement between the words and oslc:describes cardinality > providing a machine-readable definition... > from: of an OSLC resource type . > to: of one or more OSLC resource types or instances. > FWIW: I kept "resource type" there, but "resource definition" might be > more in keeping with the rest of the specs' content... did not do a wide > search. > > Q5: (editorial nit) > OSLC Creation Factory MAY provide ... > from: a Resource Shape ... create a resource > to: Resource Shapes ... create resources > ...and a similar change for Query Capability in the next sentence. > > Q6: (editorial nit) > from: A Resource Shape resource can have a title and a type . > to: A Resource Shape resource can have a title and a set of types. > > > [1] > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecAppendixA? > sortcol=table;table=up;up=#oslc_ResourceShape_Resource > Best Regards, John > > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages > Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
