F2F1-objectives

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Objectives FTF April 2011

  • first two months: open discussions, very good
  • now: move to issue-driven process
  • email threads should lead to consensus, new issues, issue resolutions, and/or out-of-scope decisions
  • identification of documents that serve as stating point
  • editorships

GRAPHS

  • g-box, g-snap and g-text are useful notions => issue = find good names
  • alignment with SPARQL: dataset => g-box
  • graph identifiers typically defined for g-boxes
    • => study consequences for g-snaps and g-texts
  • starting document: RDF Concepts?!
    • add g-* terminology
    • add section on graph naming of g-boxes
    • add section on RDF-SPARQL relation
  • issue: consequences for RDF Semantics
  • issue: graph-name format (e.g. graph literals)

TURTLE

  • team submission is starting point
  • issue process already on its way (e.g. the 18. issue)
  • decide on specification style(s) to be used (discussion Eric - Peter)
  • N-Triples defined as limited subset of Turtle
  • Issue-23: should Turtle parsers be able to parse Qurtle docs?
    • => TRIG syntax vs. @graph style
    • different media types seems sensible

JSON

  • no clear starting point or issue list: this is a problem
  • object-based approach: to attract the general JSON community
    • potentially high impact
    • but: doubtful whether we are in a position to standardize this
  • graph-based approach: for existing SW developers community
    • Talis submission appears good starting point
  • we should seriously consider not working on a REC, despite charter
    • decision does not need to be now, necessarily
  • maybe best/current practice note(s)