- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 18:39:27 -0400
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Karen, Thanks. I'll create an issue for this. -- Arthur On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > +1. Does this need to be entered as an issue so it can be voted on? > > kc > > > On 4/9/15 2:01 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote: >> >> Arnaud and WG Members, >> >> Last week Holger proposed a TOC for the SHACL Spec [1]. This is based >> on the specification he is editing at [2]. The TOC splits the content >> into Part 1 and Part 2 which aligns with Ted's characterization of the >> audiences as 1) those who are happy with built-in constraints, and 2) >> those who want custom constraints. >> >> Part 1 requires no knowledge of SPARQL. It could be implemented in >> SPARQL or other technologies. >> >> I propose that the WG adopt this document as the basis for the SHACL >> spec going forward and that we focus our energy on improving Part 1 to >> the level of quality required for a FPWD. >> >> We should then publish the FPWD with the instructions to reviews that >> Part 1 is stable and ready for detailed review, and that Part 2 is >> unstable but we welcome comment. >> >> This approach has the advantage that once we establish the vocabulary >> for the built-in constraints, we can start writing a Primer, creating >> Test Cases, etc. In parallel the WG can work on how to integrate >> custom constraints, define the language binding for SPARQL, decide on >> how to support other languages, provide SPARQL implementations for the >> built-in constraints, etc. >> >> [1] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Apr/0018.html >> [2] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/ >> >> -- Arthur >> >> > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 22:39:54 UTC