Re: blank slate

Do you think JSON-LD might be an acceptable compromise for your users, 
or not?

Roughly like (untested):

{
     "@context" : "http://w3.org/2014/shapes/context",
     "@id" : "ex:Person",
     "constraint" : {
         "type" : "shapes:Property",
         "property" : "ex:firstName",
         "occurs" : "shapes:Exactly-one",
         "valueType" : "xsd:string"
     }
}

Holger


On 8/5/2014 10:06, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> I share some of Karen's concerns.
>
> At Syapse we are integrating our RDF based systems with legacy systems such as HL7 systems.
> The engineers dealing with the legacy systems don't think RDF, don't know RDF, they don't want to know RDF.
> They don't think open world or closed world, etc.
>
> Given that the legacy system (like many legacy systems) is (overly?) complicated we don't want to add a layer of over-complication of our own; however we do want to have expressive power to deal with the complications in the patterns if that is appropriate.
>
> I feel that this use case (HL7/RDF integration) shares some of the issues that Karen seems concerned about: the pattern language is being used to communicate with engineers who are not RDF literate, and do not want to be.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 1:48 PM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> @markuslanthaler
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 00:27:14 UTC