Re: shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec]

Needless to say I am fully supporting this move. I would appreciate 
specific feedback from those who are unconvinced of (Part 1 of) my draft 
about what is missing, so that we can try to address their concerns.

Holger


On 4/10/2015 8:41, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/43
>
> Raised by: Arthur Ryman
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> Last week Holger proposed a TOC for the SHACL Spec [1]. This is based
> on the specification he is editing at [2]. The TOC splits the content
> into Part 1 and Part 2 which aligns with Ted's characterization of the
> audiences as 1) those who are happy with built-in constraints, and 2)
> those who want custom constraints.
>
> Part 1 requires no knowledge of SPARQL. It could be implemented in
> SPARQL or other technologies.
>
> I propose that the WG adopt this document as the basis for the SHACL
> spec going forward and that we focus our energy on improving Part 1 to
> the level of quality required for a FPWD.
>
> We should then publish the FPWD with the instructions to reviews that
> Part 1 is stable and ready for detailed review, and that Part 2 is
> unstable but we welcome comment.
>
> This approach has the advantage that once we establish the vocabulary
> for the built-in constraints, we can start writing a Primer, creating
> Test Cases, etc. In parallel the WG can work on how to integrate
> custom constraints, define the language binding for SPARQL, decide on
> how to support other languages, provide SPARQL implementations for the
> built-in constraints, etc.
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Apr/0018.html
> [2] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 23:41:09 UTC