Re: Moving forward

Hi Peter,

There is only so much that can be conveyed in a list of deliverables that 
is meant to be concise. The list doesn't stand on its own though. The 
previous sections of the charter give additional information about what is 
meant in that list. For instance, I think the following list of issues to 
be addressed in section 1 makes it clear that the first deliverable isn't 
just about defining a vocabulary without defining what shapes are, how 
they are to be used, and what they mean.

Defining and publishing a description of the intended topology and value 
constraints of a nodes in a RDF graph, henceforth a "shape".
Verification of data integrity with respect to a shape.
Human and machine interpretation of shapes to develop or optimize SPARQL 
queries and develop user interfaces.

There has already been plenty of discussion on this list and unfortunately 
not much convergence. The only pratical way forward I see is for everyone 
to focus on the exact wording of the charter and to propose specific 
changes. Just like we would do when developing a spec. That's what I told 
Arthur a few days ago, and he did. His proposal was rejected but I think 
that's the only concrete way to make progress. General statements of 
opinion aren't very helpful.

Of course, we all come from different backgrounds and we still need to 
check that we read the charter the same way but we should try and not let 
that distract us from the goal at hand: editing the charter so that it's 
acceptable for all.

Regards.

--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM 
Software Group


"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 08/06/2014 
10:09:04 AM:

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
> Date: 08/06/2014 10:09 AM
> Subject: Re: Moving forward
> 
> I can't support the current deliverables, at least as I understand them.
> 
> The first deliverable indicates that the working group is supposed to be 

> producing an RDF vocabulary for shapes without defining what shapes 
> are or how 
> they are to be used.  Either that or the first deliverable is simply an 
RDF 
> vocabulary for some existing definition of shapes, which seems even 
stranger.
> 
> The second deliverable uses considerably different language, as if the 
two 
> products cover quite different situations.   This does not sound like a 
good 
> idea to me.
> 
> There is no recommendation track deliverable for the meaning of 
> shapes/constraints/validation.
> 
> 
> The current draft charter is also tilted away from the kind of RDF 
validation 
> that is done with respect to RDFS classes, particularly in the 
scopesection. 
>   This is particularly strange as there has been quite a bit of 
discussion as 
> to how class-based validation relates to shapes.  I would have expected 
the 
> scope to have been widened to cover the goals of class-based 
> validation of RDF 
> graphs.  I also don't see what RDF shapes have to say to the description 
of 
> query interfaces.
> 
> 
> I do not think that the charter is ready.
> 
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/06/2014 09:31 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As chair-to-be of the proposed WG I've been working with the W3C Team 
on
> > trying to find a way forward that would be acceptable by all.
> >
> > The normative change proposed to the charter [draft charter] which was 
to
> > start with use cases and requirements instead of assuming Resource
> Shapes as a
> > starting point was made weeks ago. The Team has actually made the 
charter
> > technology neutral with regard to all of the various candidates 
> out there and
> > has now made the compact human-readable syntax an optional deliverable 
and
> > added a reference to Dublin Core Application Profiles. I haven't seen 
any
> > other proposal that seems to have general support.
> >
> > [draft charter] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter
> >
> > So at this point, I think we're better off going with the proposed 
charter,
> > launch the WG, and direct our efforts towards writing up the use 
cases,
> > requirements, and exploring what the best solution might be 
objectively.
> >
> > There is definitely a risk that the WG will struggle to find a 
> direction with
> > such an open ended charter but at the same time I think it will be 
more
> > productive to have a discussion within the framework of a WG than 
> the way it's
> > happening now on this mailing list.
> >
> > I can say that I've worked with Arthur Ryman so that IBM would support 
this
> > even though this isn't what he wanted (FYI Arthur and I are from 
different
> > groups within IBM). Standards are made of compromises, so I hope 
> you will all
> > do the same.
> >
> > I look forward to working with you all.
> > Thank you.
> > --
> > Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - 
IBM
> > Software Group
>