Re: shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I consider this approach as extremely dangerous.

Section 1-6 of http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/ forms roughly a
partial guide to a high-level language for shape/constraints.  To the extent
that it gives some basic ideas of what might be in SHACL, this document
fragment is not bad, and can serve as a valuable resource for the working
group.  However, there are lots of holes in it, ranging from unclear
descriptions of just what is going on in particular cases to missing
information about how checking is supposed to happen to a lack of
fundamental principles.

My view is that the real problem in the working group is that there is no
agreement on what the fundamental principles of SHACL are supposed to be.
Without at least an initial agreement on these principles the working group
is not going to be making significant headway.

Pushing this document towards a FPWD without some agreement on the
underlying principles of SHACL is only going to further delay the needed
debate on the fundamentals of SHACL, as the working group members who might
be able to work on these principles end up expending effort on things like
the names of particular bits of SHACL or whether the textual description of
some construct is correct.

I thus propose that the working group should instead expend effort on
ISSUE-29 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/29 instead, as that
issue speaks to the fundamental problem that I see in the working group.  If
there is a need for a heartbeat document that might be the start of a guide
then maybe it would be useful to produce something that just lists the
syntax in Sections 1-6 without any attempt to describe it, although I think
that the development of even such a simple document will also delay the work
that needs to be done.

peter


On 04/09/2015 03:41 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of
> SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/43
> 
> Raised by: Arthur Ryman On product: SHACL Spec
> 
> Last week Holger proposed a TOC for the SHACL Spec [1]. This is based on
> the specification he is editing at [2]. The TOC splits the content into
> Part 1 and Part 2 which aligns with Ted's characterization of the 
> audiences as 1) those who are happy with built-in constraints, and 2) 
> those who want custom constraints.
> 
> Part 1 requires no knowledge of SPARQL. It could be implemented in SPARQL
> or other technologies.
> 
> I propose that the WG adopt this document as the basis for the SHACL spec
> going forward and that we focus our energy on improving Part 1 to the
> level of quality required for a FPWD.
> 
> We should then publish the FPWD with the instructions to reviews that 
> Part 1 is stable and ready for detailed review, and that Part 2 is 
> unstable but we welcome comment.
> 
> This approach has the advantage that once we establish the vocabulary for
> the built-in constraints, we can start writing a Primer, creating Test
> Cases, etc. In parallel the WG can work on how to integrate custom
> constraints, define the language binding for SPARQL, decide on how to
> support other languages, provide SPARQL implementations for the built-in
> constraints, etc.
> 
> [1]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Apr/0018.html
>
> 
[2] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
> 
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVJw3aAAoJECjN6+QThfjzdJYH/1jhpgMWrZ6GmLYziQ4BOvjs
7y7nVeMM/92AlIKNtExIqXlujqF5hoBV9MbdahJP5Y3KsgnXNhkWOZqcdfflYl/+
LKxbDtDIxhwMu3VSfVFkXku8aV33Gh+0WoVlMjZQOmrCMXU7qCXC1jpsHAEyipJN
g48WYxN+YP84xyVSMdG4VnRA4Xv88JvnUvs01/TOX4v2XLe1JqA1k67dmEWFDGR1
lJop5icieU8HveWuEnNmZ9CzPoZrBdxQObF0o5E8pwOIzVDa74koWhmTrOH0Ud2P
cVchgETXak+IP+x6ToJZaem0zZLud0UjbNU/XIqsmMZCwhiMdpRiGEmW2bGduFE=
=8TJ3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 23:40:42 UTC