Re: Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1

+1. Does this need to be entered as an issue so it can be voted on?

kc

On 4/9/15 2:01 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Arnaud and WG Members,
>
> Last week Holger proposed a TOC for the SHACL Spec [1]. This is based
> on the specification he is editing at [2]. The TOC splits the content
> into Part 1 and Part 2 which aligns with Ted's characterization of the
> audiences as 1) those who are happy with built-in constraints, and 2)
> those who want custom constraints.
>
> Part 1 requires no knowledge of SPARQL. It could be implemented in
> SPARQL or other technologies.
>
> I propose that the WG adopt this document as the basis for the SHACL
> spec going forward and that we focus our energy on improving Part 1 to
> the level of quality required for a FPWD.
>
> We should then publish the FPWD with the instructions to reviews that
> Part 1 is stable and ready for detailed review, and that Part 2 is
> unstable but we welcome comment.
>
> This approach has the advantage that once we establish the vocabulary
> for the built-in constraints, we can start writing a Primer, creating
> Test Cases, etc. In parallel the WG can work on how to integrate
> custom constraints, define the language binding for SPARQL, decide on
> how to support other languages, provide SPARQL implementations for the
> built-in constraints, etc.
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Apr/0018.html
> [2] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
>
> -- Arthur
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 22:17:13 UTC