- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:01:05 +1000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
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.
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 01:02:40 UTC