Re: F2F draft agenda

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think that the working group needs to make some basic decisions that
> affect these issues before spending too much time on them.
>
> For example:
> - - Is the working group going to be building a modelling language?
> - - What kinds of scopes are going to be included?
>
> On 02/11/2015 03:48 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > IMHO the following two issues should be tackled soon and ideally in the
> > F2F meeting
> >
> > 1) Technology name [1]. Right now some people use ldom others try to
> > refer to the technology with an abstract name and as Holger mentioned
> > earlier, until we fix this we cannot make any discussions easily
> > searchable.
>
> Part of the problem with coming up with a name is that there is no
> agreement
> on several basic aspects of the technology.  In the absence of such an
> agreement, I think that Eric's name is the best that we can do.  (I was
> using BLOB in some stuff I put together for precisely this reason.)
>
> Let's figure out what the thing that we are supposed to be producing is
> before figuring out its name.
>

I see the point but at least there is a charter that everyone agreed on,
maybe we can base the name on that

>
> > 2) Core shapes definition, referring to how we define "Constraints/Shapes
> > on Properties" (based on the latest iteration) Again for the same reason,
> > people post examples in different formats or some avoid to write due to
> > confusion. I made a draft page [2] where others can extend with
> > alternative options and all could vote.
>
> This appears to conflate two issues.
> 1/ How to specify the scope/trigger for a shape.
> 2/ How to constrain property values in a shape.
>
> Further, there may be multiple ways to specify the scope of a shape, and
> the
> document only specifies two.  I don't think that the working group has
> decided on just which kinds of scope specification there should be.
>

I think the core definition syntax can be orthogonal to both issues. IBM
Resource Shapes is an example that handles both scoped & unscoped
constraints already.
The ldom proposal was IMO a good move but didn't bring consensus on this
core shape definition part.
The top-down approach that we are trying all this time does not lead to any
conclusion and maybe a bottom-up might work.
Maybe we can say that this is a temporary syntax that most people feel
comfortable with and if requirements cannot be met we can adapt it
accordingly.

Best,
Dimitris


>
> > Maybe these topics can be included in the agenda of related sessions
> >
> > Best, Dimitris
> >
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Technology_Name [2]
> > https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Core_Shape_Definition
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU22UfAAoJECjN6+QThfjz++IIAI8HxvOp2Kh2s+ajt1tFI+oB
> 0qGFLtZX3dID6dXDZYevRCZSXsmaBaCEuDRXDA4F+DOUVINYtOqId06wStUCcBP3
> UPj9WWPshBXF1v0oT9HIDEMDevLctvaADGoLt8f92z9b5wUIJxwouXlqJQZdMRah
> 3XAgpgD1qM6x9IVAr2nCLA9rgMo8eLGO3wMggcVKxcUv59Wu5rTB3j/St9ruPbwo
> n+Ws1yNBhpkis8f9P8rOnyPmeoaSQROawvLwoFra1qRzjHJcWb89W2uuh9ZUUsbB
> 4z3pMq3NPsesWAKo99pk3We7wv3Kub7fNgSms6yhj2RPQ02rUe5TdM4eK8lIApw=
> =FyfW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>



-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas