Re: Moving forward

I am never quite sure how strict the initial charter needs to be 
followed, and whether the number of deliverables dictates what will be 
produced. Maybe a question to Eric: can deliverables be split or removed 
at runtime of the WG? In that case the charter can indeed be some fluffy 
paragraphs that leave everything open and we move on...

Holger


On 8/8/2014 11:09, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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 01:13:46 UTC