Re: F2F draft agenda

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I think that the working group needs to make some basic decisions that
affect these issues before spending too much time on them.

For example:
- - Is the working group going to be building a modelling language?
- - What kinds of scopes are going to be included?

On 02/11/2015 03:48 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> IMHO the following two issues should be tackled soon and ideally in the
> F2F meeting
> 
> 1) Technology name [1]. Right now some people use ldom others try to
> refer to the technology with an abstract name and as Holger mentioned
> earlier, until we fix this we cannot make any discussions easily
> searchable.

Part of the problem with coming up with a name is that there is no agreement
on several basic aspects of the technology.  In the absence of such an
agreement, I think that Eric's name is the best that we can do.  (I was
using BLOB in some stuff I put together for precisely this reason.)

Let's figure out what the thing that we are supposed to be producing is
before figuring out its name.

> 2) Core shapes definition, referring to how we define "Constraints/Shapes
> on Properties" (based on the latest iteration) Again for the same reason,
> people post examples in different formats or some avoid to write due to
> confusion. I made a draft page [2] where others can extend with
> alternative options and all could vote.

This appears to conflate two issues.
1/ How to specify the scope/trigger for a shape.
2/ How to constrain property values in a shape.

Further, there may be multiple ways to specify the scope of a shape, and the
document only specifies two.  I don't think that the working group has
decided on just which kinds of scope specification there should be.

> Maybe these topics can be included in the agenda of related sessions
> 
> Best, Dimitris
> 
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Technology_Name [2]
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Core_Shape_Definition
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU22UfAAoJECjN6+QThfjz++IIAI8HxvOp2Kh2s+ajt1tFI+oB
0qGFLtZX3dID6dXDZYevRCZSXsmaBaCEuDRXDA4F+DOUVINYtOqId06wStUCcBP3
UPj9WWPshBXF1v0oT9HIDEMDevLctvaADGoLt8f92z9b5wUIJxwouXlqJQZdMRah
3XAgpgD1qM6x9IVAr2nCLA9rgMo8eLGO3wMggcVKxcUv59Wu5rTB3j/St9ruPbwo
n+Ws1yNBhpkis8f9P8rOnyPmeoaSQROawvLwoFra1qRzjHJcWb89W2uuh9ZUUsbB
4z3pMq3NPsesWAKo99pk3We7wv3Kub7fNgSms6yhj2RPQ02rUe5TdM4eK8lIApw=
=FyfW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:20:47 UTC