How should opemWEMI minimally be presented for approval?

[niklasl]

See #123

(We are assuming an RDF representation is mandatory.)

[annakasprzik]

I abstain from voting because it depends on the document: if it leaves out fine details of the specification that afterwards turn out to make all the difference then it is no good but otherwise one document is much easier to review, of course.

[aisaac]

I voted "Separate primer and formal specification" as a separate primer could be a good place for putting useful material (for instance dcmi/openwemi#88) that would otherwise overload the 'real' specification.

[kcoyle]

Does "formal specification" mean a document? or is the RDF vocabulary a formal specification? If the former, then we would have three documents:

1. Formal specification
2. RDF vocabulary
3. Primer

[philbarker]

I did not vote. I don't have a strong preference for the number of documents, so long as it is clear what is normative and what is informative, and which document is authoritative should there be any differences (accidental or otherwise).

[kcoyle]

The group thinks that the HTML file is the formal specification; the primer is informative; the ttl file is the authoritative vocabulary. Is this what the UB thinks is needed?