Re: types of "graphs"

On 10-05-2012 00:30, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 9 May 2012, at 22:29, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>> Why do *we* need to define the term for a frozen g-box? Why not leave it to the community?
>> Sloppy phrasing on my part. I meant to say: this line of reasoning implies there is a need for at most one type.
> Ok.
>> With my chair hat on I prefer not to take a position whether we should predefine it or not. I only note that such the "frozen-box" type  arose from our use cases.
> Right. If third parties can define the term without violating something in our spec text (i.e., a “frozen” g-box doesn't contradict something in our semantics), then I'd argue we should leave it to them.

[probably superfluous]

Every WG struggles with this trade-off between keeping it simple and 
providing the needed support. If we would agree that there is sound 
technical or pragmatic reason to be able to specify a graph-container 
type (but we are not there yet)  we have basically three options:

   1.  standardize it in a normative spec
   2.  suggest an (informative) best practice
   3.  do nothing

If the need for such a typing mechanism arises from many use cases there 
is certainly a case to be made for the first or second option. The 
decision might also depend on the overall landscape of proposed changes. 
But again, we're not at that stage yet.


> Best,
> Richard

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 23:25:07 UTC