- From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 06:49:21 -0700
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
In-line +1, -1s … to proposal immediately above On Aug 6, 2014, at 1:16 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > > SUGGESTED SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES: > > 1. In Section 4 (Deliverables), change: > [[ > 5. Test Suite and/or Validator: to help ensure interoperability > and correct implementation. The group will chose the form of > this deliverable, such as a git repository. > ]] > to: > [[ > 5. Test Suite, to help ensure interoperability and correct > implementation. The group will chose the location of this > deliverable, such as a git repository. > > 6. (OPTIONAL) Reference Validator: a reference implementation > that may be used for non-production purposes to test validation > rules against test data. > ]] > > REASON: A test suite is essential; a reference validator would be nice but is not essential. Also, the previous word was completely unclear able what was meant by "Validator". > +1 > 2. Change "The WG MAY produce a Recommendation for graph normalization." to something like: "OPTIONAL - A Recommendation for normalization/canonicalization of RDF graphs and RDF datasets that are serialized in N-Triples and N-Quads." > > REASON: Canonicalization needs to be relative to a serialization in order to be most useful. Otherwise "canonicalized" RDF may be serialized in multiple ways, and still could not be usefully compared for regression testing or other purposes. -1: I think I need to produce my own proposal here; in my view David's wording is slightly worse > > 3. In Section 4 (Deliverables), change "OPTIONAL - Compact, human-readable syntax" to "Compact, human-readable syntax", i.e., make it required. > > REASON: I think a compact, readable syntax is important. Writing validation rules in RDF would be simpler than writing them in SPARQL, but still much more tedious than having a concise, compact syntax for expressing them. > > +1: I believe Karen has made the case for this deliverable (all the editorial comments seemed good to me)
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 13:49:51 UTC