- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 09:40:14 -0700
- To: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On 8/1/14, 12:44 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote: > 1. Compact, human readable syntax for expressing constraints on RDF > graph patterns (aka shapes), suitable for the use cases determined by the > group. Admittedly, "human readable" is nearly indefinable - we all know one or more humans who "reads" their favorite programming language as readily as natural language, and most of us read only a few of the "human readable" languages on the planet. "A high-level RDF vocabulary" is also vague, however. What's "high enough"? or "too low"? The question then becomes: who/what is the target audience? What is the expected interaction between data creators, data designers, and software developers with the output of the group's effort? It might be best to state the charge in terms of functions or activities rather than a list of outcomes. One way to find the functional level of the work of this group would be to create a stack, from RDF to the user interface of the data creator or consumer, define key aspects of each point in the stack, and then state where in the stack this group's work is targeted. I would like to see human actors and roles included in the stack, to the extent possible, along with aspects of data creation workflow. [A diagram of this type, but not precisely as described here, is the DCMI Singapore Framework: http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/ ] A definition of this type would help to coordinate this effort with the work being done in the Dublin Core community. It could aid us in avoiding overlapping efforts, and allow the DC group to understand what it can contribute that particularly aids the Dublin Core community. kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Saturday, 2 August 2014 16:40:46 UTC