F2F1-objectives

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)