Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
F2F1-objectives
From RDF Working Group Wiki
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)