Re: Organizing the requirements (was: First Telecon for RDF Data Shapes WG)

* Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2014-10-16 11:18+1000]
> On 10/14/2014 9:20, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >I propose that folks review the Dublin Core Application Profiles
> >requirements to get some shared terminology. I've done my best to
> >create a hierarchical version faithful to their database. I hope
> >this is a bit easier to review
> ><http://www.w3.org/2014/10/rdfvalreqs/>. The js I used to make
> >expandable lists disables clicking on links so you have to e.g.
> >shift click in order to open in a new tab (sorry!).

[SPARQL expressivity discussion elided.]

Per Holgers point below, I've moved the requirements into a JSON file
(not JSON-LD yet) <http://www.w3.org/2014/10/rdfvalreqs/reqs.json>.
There's a (crappy) group selector and only ~25 reqs in the "small"
group. Go to <http://www.w3.org/2014/10/rdfvalreqs/>, click "small"
to turn it on, "DB" to turn it off and "Expand All" to see the whole
list at once.

The groups are:
  DB: everthing in the DB (except 205, 206, 207 which are new).
  workshop: what came up during the 2013 workshop.
  small: a group that I hope we can agree on and buid upon.
  DCAP: stuff in the DB that came from the Dublinc Core group.
  ericP: most of small plus stuff I think worth adding.

If anyone else wants a vanity group, just send me the list of reqs
like: [R25, R183, Rπ].


> I second the view expressed by others yesterday that we should try
> to associate the requirements with corresponding SPARQL queries (and
> OWL equivalents if possible) and hope that we can later reuse those
> formal representations for the actual implementation of the standard
> Shapes. Of course, if a pattern already has an equivalent in OSLC
> Resource Shapes or ShEx or OWL Closed World then this should be an
> annotation to the pattern too.
> 
> To make this more specific: would it make sense to move from
> "expressivity" items to "shapes" or "patterns" and collect those in
> a semi-formal format? Other specs have this button that allows you
> to see a snippet in Turtle, RDF/XML, JSON-LD etc, and we could do
> something similar. Each such Shape candidate would have a
> 
> - name (including what could become the local name of a URI for the pattern)
> - arguments (e.g. cardinality shape has min/max and a property as arguments)
> - description
> - generality/reuse/importance level (could later lead to "profiles")
> - example(s) in prose and RDF instances
> - SPARQL implementation of the constraint check
> - OWL-Closed-World implementation
> - ShExC implementation
> - Pointers to ShEx, Resource Shapes etc. equivalents
> 
> Such a model may also better address Peter's request for measurable
> and comparable evaluation criteria. And the requirements work would
> actually become the first step towards the formal Shapes
> declarations. In fact we could start to encode them as an RDF model
> (e.g. SPIN templates) and try them out in real-time. We could
> collectively edit a Turtle file and generate human-readable
> documents from that.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Monday, 20 October 2014 22:34:23 UTC