Re: SHACL Compact Syntax, was Re: Fwd: Transition Request: 3 FPWGNOTE documents

On 05/30/2017 12:26 PM, HODGES Jr, John wrote:
>
> I am getting a bit lost in this thread. There seemed to be general 
> agreement that the compact syntax is a valuable thing for some. There 
> seemed to be general agreement that, by and large, the compact syntax 
> covered the primary territory. Now there seems to be general agreement 
> that a note isn’t a formal document and that the note need not 
> represent a completely-baked concept.
>
> So can someone explain what the issue is? I’d like to be better 
> informed before tomorrow. Thank you very much.
>

I think the key issue is assessing how stable the shacl-compact-syntax 
spec is, because we won't be able to update it, if it's published as a 
WG Note.   In contrast, if it's published it as a Community Group spec, 
the CG can update it at will later.

The thing is, CG's aren't allowed to publish into w3.org/TR space, so 
the Note will be left, probably to be found by search engines, 
potentially long after the CG has changed things.   We can add a note to 
it saying there's a later version from the CG, but that wont be noticed 
by people who land in the middle of the document, I expect.  Maybe 
there's a way to do a serious popup that can't be missed.

As for how to assess how stable it is... well, obviously it's changed in 
key ways in the past week.  Mostly I'd want to hear how implementors and 
users feel about these changes, and so far I haven't noticed any mention 
of there being any implementors or users.

I hope that helps a bit

     - Sandro

> Regards,
>
> Jack Hodges, Ph.D.
>
> Siemens Corporation
> CT RDA NEC WOS-US
> 1936 University, Suite 320
> Berkeley, CA 94704-1074, USA
>
>
> Mobil: +1 510 289-2982
> mailto:jack.hodges@siemens.com
>
> *From:*Irene Polikoff [mailto:irene@topquadrant.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 29, 2017 4:54 PM
> *To:* Dimitris Kontokostas
> *Cc:* Holger Knublauch; public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: SHACL Compact Syntax, was Re: Fwd: Transition Request: 
> 3 FPWGNOTE documents
>
>     On May 29, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas
>     <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de
>     <mailto:kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>> wrote:
>
>     Anyway, the WG produced another note that went through more
>     review, is more mature and there was no comment on that.
>
> No comment from whom? And why would this point be relevant here? Notes 
> are not on the standardization track and different notes may be at 
> different levels of factual or perceived completeness and maturity. 
> This, I think, would be a function of how far the work has progressed 
> at the time the WG stopped it.
>
>
>
> Imo, this one is not in such a good shape.
>
> Sando or W3m could probably tell what are the requirements for a W3C 
> note and if this spec qualifies for that, or if a member submission or 
> a followup CG report would be a better option
>
> It is my understanding that “A Working Group Note or Interest Group 
> Note is published by a chartered Working Group or Interest Group to 
> provide a stable reference for a useful document that is not intended 
> to be a formal standard, or to document work that was abandoned 
> without producing a Recommendation."
>
> As far as I can tell, there is no required maturity qualifications for 
> a note. It is a publication of a useful work that has been done by a 
> WG. And creating such publication is the expected step - as indicated 
> by the “should” below:
>
> "Some, but not all, Working Drafts are meant to advance to 
> Recommendation. Any Working Draft not, or no longer, intended to 
> advance to Recommendation /should/ be published as a Working Group 
> Note. Working Drafts do not necessarily represent a consensus of the 
> Working Group, and do not imply any endorsement by W3C or its members 
> beyond agreement to work on a general area of technology."
>
> I am quoting from https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/
>
> By all criteria, this should be published as the working group note, 
> unless I am completely misreading the process description.
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     Dimitris
>