fundamental issues

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Here are some issues that I think should be discussed before consideration
of particular new proposed technology.  Otherwise the working group will be
spending time debating particulars of the technology without any clear idea
of whether these particulars will end up in a final solution.  These issues
start with the most fundamental ones that I think definitely need to be
addressed before working on solutions and end up with a couple that possibly
could be deferred a bit but that I think are still important to consider
early on.


1. Modelling

Is the working group going to produce a modelling language, i.e., a language
that sits alongside RDFS and is used to describe how information in a domain
is structured?  The alternative would be to produce a language that
takes RDF information that already is potentially subject to a modelling
language and determines whether that information satisfies extra conditions.

2. Target Data

Is the working group producing a solution tailored for RDF data, where RDF
graphs and rdf:type are important; for RDFS data, where rdfs:subClassOf,
rdfs:subPropertyOf, rdfs:domain, and rdfs:range are also important; for
Linked Data, where dereferencing and interlinking is important; or for
services data, where brevity may be important?

2. Shapes and Classes

Are shapes RDF classes, i.e., should shapes be the object of rdf:tyoe
triples, participate in rdfs:subClassOf relationships, and be the object of
rdfs:domain and rdfs:range triples?

3. Shape Scope

What sort of scopes can be given to shapes?  (For example, it is possible to
state that a particular node in a graph is governed by a shape?  Or all
instances of a particular class in a graph?  Or all nodes in a graph?)

It is possible to state that all nodes in a graph must validate against one
of several shapes?  Or that there must exist a node in a graph that
validates against a shape?

4. Initiating Validation

What are the arguments to validation?  It is possible to directly specify
scopes and shapes in an invocation of validation or do shapes and scopes
have to be encoded in an RDF graph or other document?

Can validation be triggered by events such as invocation of a web
service or posting by a web service?



peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU3SbmAAoJECjN6+QThfjzBPEH/0zfpRbTAAOn0LuLVrViFyBG
uAabONjS/DP1VtsZ/pMurvBVEWWzzNeU/BuX2OfB2fQcvU2nCG/E1gRAxjgn3LJp
dPDHa8DovkPxs5o9MJOMS8QiN27iHZDmjLcaQaev/zDWwfSvAur8ItrsRyv2t03o
M9OfHN+e/qk6OBPy6tcsTuwC1ZP0qKqLsj+++IUB69a0bz1x1WBDW6Te9C4dYCWJ
39+sbiNSqxwDKqFhSzORc8dBcP+vY59O3Vlxcd1Rq00+EBUiVpEtIKjToMB1N3j9
8HJgrA9TiqUB7tvm6dBZ2e5VfsR7lvRDc5YC0SzmXwlRKvAULdrpMwASfLwdqAM=
=wkz0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 12 February 2015 22:19:51 UTC