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

Re: Proposed change to the charter, section 4. Deliverables, Recommendation Track

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:41:47 -0700
Message-ID: <53E42ADB.9010000@gmail.com>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>


On 08/07/2014 06:33 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2014-08-07 17:41-0700]
>>
>>
>> On 08/07/2014 05:24 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 7, 2014 12:44 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, I did present what I thought was a good neutral set of deliverables,
>>> namely
[...]
>>>>
>>>> 3. OPTIONAL A specification of how shape verification interacts with
>>>> inference.
>>>
>>> I think this one feel off radar. Did you see any support for this?
>>
>> Well, it was supposed to be a better version of the normalization requirement.
>
> I think I'm not getting the connection. I'd expect that inference
> would allow one to say that e.g. a myco:Employee is subclass of a
> foaf:Person before enforcing a rule that required the foaf:Person arc
> on employee records. I thought that normalization was about
> predictably ordering the arcs. Is my model wrong, or perhaps one
> conversationed morphed into the other? More importantly to my task at
> hand, should I continue to track this?

I had thought that the normalization deliverable was to handle RDF or RDFS 
inference.  I couldn't imagine any other use for normalization as related to 
shape checking.

>>>> 4. OPTIONAL A compact, human-readable syntax for expressing shapes.
>>>>
>>>> peter

peter
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 01:42:17 UTC

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