Re: Moving forward

On 8/8/2014 10:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Well right now I don't see any requirement that the WG provides a firm 
> definition of how shapes work, nor just what is a shape.  I was 
> proposing to close this hole.
>
> There is nothing in my proposal against having the syntax be 
> particular kinds of RDF graphs, nor having the semantics be a mapping 
> into SPARQL (or OWL CWA, or even Z), as long as there is a firm 
> definition of what is going on.

But if the first deliverable already defines RDF as its syntax, what 
would the second deliverable contain then?

Holger

>>> >>> 1. A syntax and semantics for shapes specifying how to construct 
>>> shape
>>> >>> expressions and how shape expressions are evaluated against RDF 
>>> graphs.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2. An RDF vocabulary [such as Resource Shapes] for expressing these
>>> >>> shapes in RDF triples, so they can
>>> >>> be stored, queried, analyzed, and manipulated with normal RDF 
>>> tools.