- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:17:31 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, public-new-work@w3.org, Shawn Simister <simister@google.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
+Cc: Shawn On 26 August 2014 05:05, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/22/14 9:36 AM, Coralie Mercier wrote: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter > > > Hi All, > > Please excuse a few newbie questions and comments ... > > Do you expect something like [shex-defn] to be standardized by this group? > What is the implementation status of [shapes] and [shex-defn]? > > What, if any, relationship is there between this proposed group's work and > "Web Schemas" (f.e.x [1],[2])? (The first few "design goals" in the draft > charter indicate a potential link.) "Developers of each data-consuming application could define the shapes their software needs to find in each feed, in order to work properly, with optional elements it can use to work better. When these developers want to modify their software, they can define new shapes they require (etc)" in http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter I would summarize the relationship as "loosely coupled". In the RDF community there has long been a wish to have better ways than prose for indicating patterns of graph data usage (consumption and publication); in particular for multi-namespace usage. Various of us experimented with RDF query for this even prior to SPARQL, and it remains promising. If this WG delivers on its promises, there's definitely a use case and community interest there. If not, well, life goes on much as before, no hard feelings :) See http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/images/0/00/SimpleApplication-SpecificConstraintsforRDFModels.pdf from the RDF Validation Workshop last year (cc:'ing co-author Shawn Simister) for a few more notes in that direction. Dan > Re schedule, if the group expects to publish RECs in Feb 2016, why would the > WG remain open through June 2017? > > Also, IMHO, this text is antisocial: > > [[ > Remote participation does not necessarily qualify for good standing. > ]] > > (Is this requirement actually codified in any WG charters now?) > > -Thanks, AB > > [1] <http://schema.org/> > [2] <https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas> > [shapes] <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shapes-20140211/> > [shex-defn] <http://www.w3.org/Submission/shex-defn/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 16:18:04 UTC