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

Proposed change to the charter

From: Dam, Jesse van <jesse.vandam@wur.nl>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:30:09 +0000
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63CF398D7F09744BA51193F17F5252AB1FD60B24@SCOMP0936.wurnet.nl>
Hi Eric,

I see that there has been a lot of discussion in the last 2 weeks as I have been away on holidays. 
In general I do agree with the new/extra ideas and disagree with discussion points deeming something not being use full. 

It is clear there is a need for something new that is not yet captured by SPARQL, SPIN, OWL/ICV and OSLC Resource Shapes, however I do agree we should be not be duplicating thing and make use of and align with these technologies where possible.

I did read the current charter and I do agree with its content and like the fact that all solutions (including SPARQL/SPIN, OWL closed world, Regular Expression derivatives and others) are going to be considered and researched. As it is not possible to make a decision at this moment.

However to my opinion we miss a deliverable recommandation (a similar one is present in the OWL 2 definition):
Algebraic logic: defining the the (direct) semantics meaning of shapes and defining the associated validation process. These logics can be reusing the logics defined in SPARQL and OWL (closed world), but can contain novel logics if deemed needed. 

In relation to the SHEXc deliverable, do I have a preference to make it mandatory as deliverable, but make its recommendation optional.(like as it is for manchester syntax for OWL)

Jesse van Dam

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 09:30:55 UTC

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