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

Re: Moving forward

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:09:56 -0700
Message-ID: <53E42364.7020408@gmail.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Then you would only need one document to cover two deliverables.

Remember we are working with RDF, so there is no unique deliverable 
assumption.  :-)


On 08/07/2014 06:01 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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 01:10:26 UTC

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