Re: Technology options

I was actually quite surprised that there was so much divergence in what 
people thought that the working group was supposed to deliver.  The 
Face-to-Face helped to clarify some of the differences, but I'm still not 
completely sure about some of the use cases that people think are supposed to 
be covered.

That said, I think that there is soon supposed to be a wiki page containing 
the stories that were discussed at the Face-to-Face.  My belief is that some 
examples of how the various technologies handle these stories would be useful, 
and I plan on adding this information when this part of the wiki is set up.

In any case, any working group member is free to add just about anything to 
the wiki.  If you feel that this kind of information is useful now, feel free 
to start adding it for the technologies that you feel should be considered. 
If other working group members think that this is useful to do, then they are 
likely to add their own information in.


On 11/03/2014 03:38 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> While we are collecting and cleaning up requirements and use cases, I am
> trying to see if we can do technical preparation work in parallel. It would
> IMHO be sad if we spend the next few months with nothing but requirements,
> especially given that EricP already had collected quite a number of
> requirements and I believe we already have quite a good basic understanding of
> what the WG is supposed to deliver.
> Maybe we could also create Wiki pages to discuss the strengths and weaknesses
> of each technology, allowing the proponents to clarify what they envision. It
> should be clear that any input technology is just the starting point, and that
> missing features can be added to any of the languages.
> So looking at the meeting last week, I believe the current catalog of starting
> points is:
> - ShEx
> - OWL (Closed World) only
> - Resource Shapes + SPIN
> - OWL + SPIN
> - OWL + Resource Shapes + SPIN
> - Any other (new) technology ?
> Are any other proposals on the table?
> I have not included Resource Shapes stand-alone because it would be very
> similar to ShEx but without extension mechanism.
> Holger

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 07:25:49 UTC