RE: blank slate

On 3 Aug 2014 at 17:19, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Actually, the "compact, human readable syntax" is what I am most
> interested in. It may need to be built on top of what the group
> develops, but without it, the community I am most interested in will not
> be able to participate, as we will have few members with the technical
> skills to express constraints in something resembling, for example, a
> complex SPARQL query.
> I posted a reply to this thread that no one has replied to, so it is
> sitting there sadly orphaned. Briefly, what I do not see anywhere in
> this conversation any mention of WHO is the target of this
> "deliverable".

That's indeed a very important question that has, IMO as well, been mostly ignored so far.

> There is a great deal of discussion of the technology but
> almost none of the real world in which it will operate, and zero
> discussion of the target skill set of the intended implementers. As so
> often seems to happen in standards work, the skill set of the members of
> the standards group is assumed as the target skill set of all users.

Since this group is working on RDF validation and not JSON or XML validation, I think it is fair to assume at least some knowledge of RDF. As such, I think a "compact, human readable RDF-based syntax" is a very reasonable thing. I'm not too much a fan of introducing yet another (serialization) format/syntax.

Markus Lanthaler

Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 20:48:36 UTC