Re: Moving forward

Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 08/07/2014 06:12:12 PM:

> I am never quite sure how strict the initial charter needs to be 
> followed, and whether the number of deliverables dictates what will be 
> produced. Maybe a question to Eric: can deliverables be split or removed 

> at runtime of the WG? In that case the charter can indeed be some fluffy 

> paragraphs that leave everything open and we move on...
> 
> Holger

Hi Holger,
Good question. Here is how I see it:

I think charters are very much like specifications in a way. They define 
an expectation/contract about what the WG is to deliver. But it's up to 
the WG how it goes at doing so or, if you will, how that charter is 
actually implemented. Just like specifications, charters can be 
implemented in many different ways.

So, when it comes to the question at hand, the WG certainly has the 
liberty to choose the number of documents to produce to meet the 
deliverables set by its charter.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM 
Software Group


> 
> 
> On 8/8/2014 11:09, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > Then you would only need one document to cover two deliverables.
> >
> > Remember we are working with RDF, so there is no unique deliverable 
> > assumption.  :-)
> >
> > peter
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >>
> 
>