W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Making progress on graphs

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 11:11:51 -0400
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, W3C Chairs of the RDF WG <team-rdf-chairs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1337008311.3256.121.camel@waldron>
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 11:49 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Hi Sandro,
> 
> On 13 May 2012, at 22:29, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > Richard's proposal (with some minor tweaks in how he defined dataset
> > [1]) happens to be in line with my proposal, but I'm rather opposed to
> > it as a matter of principal
> 
> The WG tracker has 27 open issues and 6 raised issues.
> 
> Your position is that you object as a matter of principle to resolving about half of the open issues, except if they're all resolved as a package. This is even though the proposed partial resolution supports your position and appears to have WG consensus.

I'm not objecting _formally_, I just think it's unwise to approach our
work this way likely to lead to more wasted time.

I would object formally to it as phrased, because I think we need to use
a notion of datasets that's compatible with quads.     That is, Issue-22
should be No, not Yes.   CF the semantics of creating an empty named
graph in SPARQL 1.1.

> In the meantime, the editors of the syntax, model and primer documents are (to slightly exaggerate) twiddling their thumbs waiting for some decisions to be made. So that they can start work on grammars, examples, and systematic reviews of other WG's related specs.

And your proposal clears that roadblock?  I don't see how.   

> This is in the month when, according to the charter, we were supposed to go to LC.

I'm well aware of the timing.   That's why a large part of why I've been
putting in very long hours on RDF-WG stuff in recent weeks.

> Can you please explain how formally resolving some uncontroversial issues that you personally support can possibly be a bad thing?

I could be wrong, and I don't mean any disrespect to anyone by saying
this, but I don't think it's clear to most of us how each of these
issues ties in with a solution.  I think some issues are controversial
or non-controversial based on gut feelings, not good data.   I know
that's how it's been with me until recently.   I think it's true of
others because of how much difficulty they have explaining how these
decisions interact with the use cases, when I ask.

Frankly, I think the best path forward would be to close all the GRAPHs
issues without prejudice [1], open a few highlighted in my draft, and
publish it as a FPWD.  Then move forward from there, opening and closing
issues against that draft as a baseline.    I think that will give us a
sense of progress and actually give us traction.

   -- Sandro

[1] Normally when issues are closed, we say they cannot be opened again
unless there is new information.   In this case, I suggest we simply
clear the slate and start again, because those issues are coming from so
many different directions.

    
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 15:12:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT