- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:09:56 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Then you would only need one document to cover two deliverables. Remember we are working with RDF, so there is no unique deliverable assumption. :-) peter On 08/07/2014 06:01 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > On 8/8/2014 10:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> Well right now I don't see any requirement that the WG provides a firm >> definition of how shapes work, nor just what is a shape. I was proposing to >> close this hole. >> >> There is nothing in my proposal against having the syntax be particular >> kinds of RDF graphs, nor having the semantics be a mapping into SPARQL (or >> OWL CWA, or even Z), as long as there is a firm definition of what is going on. > > But if the first deliverable already defines RDF as its syntax, what would the > second deliverable contain then? > > Holger > >>>> >>> 1. A syntax and semantics for shapes specifying how to construct shape >>>> >>> expressions and how shape expressions are evaluated against RDF graphs. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 2. An RDF vocabulary [such as Resource Shapes] for expressing these >>>> >>> shapes in RDF triples, so they can >>>> >>> be stored, queried, analyzed, and manipulated with normal RDF tools. >
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 01:10:26 UTC