Re: Language Tags Requirement

Holger, I agree with Jose on this. We are developing requirements. We 
have not yet decided which requirements are core or not. (BTW, the 
Dublin Core community is right now working on identifying its core 
requirements for application profiles and validation, which we will 
share with this group. It will be a small list -- less than 2 dozen 
requirements.) The requirements do not "duplicate things already 
solved..." etc. they are something entirely different.

I don't understand the "once we decided that we leave the question open 
whether something becomes high-level language or complex feature..." 
This puzzles me because I think they are two different things: the 
high-level language is how SHACL is expressed; complex features is a 
categorization of types of SHACL functions. They are two different 
planes and cannot be compared. There could be high level language terms 
defined for complex features if we decide that those features can be 
expressed in that way. Neither of these defines the core.

We obviously need to define our own terms, since we aren't understanding 
them in the same way.

kc


On 4/25/15 3:31 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> One reason why approving the complex requirement does not automatically
> also imply approval of the high-level language requirement is that we
> risk ending up with a bloated high-level language that increases the
> implementation and training overhead - the core is expected to be
> supported by every platform. Another argument is that we are duplicating
> things that are already solved with languages like SPARQL that provide
> many more ways of combining the primitive language elements. This
> doesn't sound like the right strategy to me, especially given that
> SPARQL already provides the compatibility that you mention above.
>
>>
>> AFAIK, at this moment we are not talking about how to implement those
>> requirements.
>
> I am really puzzled by all this. It seems like once we decided that we
> leave the question open whether something becomes high-level language or
> complex feature, all previous votes on these requirements have become
> quite meaningless. Must have been a very big misunderstanding.

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

Received on Sunday, 26 April 2015 01:46:44 UTC