W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Suggested charter changes

From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 06:49:21 -0700
Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-Id: <54AA894F-F4B4-4877-8806-EB85FB5A42E5@syapse.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:40 UTC