Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 14 May 2015

For me, a discussion of differences without reference to actual cases 
and data will not be useful. I had suggested that we compare the 
proposals by looking at the differences in how they treat actual cases 
-- using some test data. I have two sets of test data that I am willing 
to provide, but my email regarding where to put the data and what else 
might be needed went un-answered. I'm still willing to provide that data 
and the requirements that go along with it.

kc



On 5/13/15 6:12 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> The F2F3 agenda being proposed is quite unspecific.
>
> I think that it would be worthwhile to spend some time on the three
> proposals for SHACL, particularly as there are some stark differences
> between them.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 05/13/2015 05:16 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>> Now available:
>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.05.14 --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies -
>> IBM Software Group
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVU/Z2AAoJECjN6+QThfjzw+4IAJ9yjpsDZI3CnyjDN4fCibmY
> igpcIxvlfM+YxUAsT+iVDPHAV/UemV1ZnYVsVd14c1++sygzMJNHuHOBvTWzX/4E
> TkIq5IZ24kPu7g2Y+5UBW3ku6BICbf8vj1j1TvwSdfN2ranS8aWN78vOy20Qe4EJ
> AEro8Z4pBLsNk6kgLE9kDsXIh2bCfD6PLlKhuOWh1o7xDhM/jh9jVIeE+cphRoa5
> zbrAO2VrCeYydCKqAVlWDtU041RowXmKwNmgwxx6HWbmhHiTdBv6EQDT9qxrA/up
> TViExdjh34paCnTPYgf+EWfn66rSFC3Jrp8qZpWkfHiO7IEPnyx6FFaiZmG7OUc=
> =pia8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

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

Received on Thursday, 14 May 2015 01:34:21 UTC