RE: blank slate

< 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.>

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Lanthaler [mailto:markus.lanthaler@gmx.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 4:48 PM
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Subject: 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
@markuslanthaler