- From: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:40:05 -0400
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
NOTE -- this thread is now on Shapes-WG list, and not CCed to previous groups or individuals -- - semantic-web@w3.org - public-rdf-shapes@w3.org - public-ldp@w3.org - DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Background is here -- 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/20150415170923.GF3772@w3.org 2. http://www.w3.org/mid/20150415173618.GB665@w3.org On Apr 15, 2015, at 02:07 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote: > On 2015-04-15 11:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> PS: The W3C RDF Data Shapes working group has not published a FPWD about SHACL. The only working draft in the works is for use cases and requirements. The fact that there are several documents that sort of claim to be published working drafts appears to be an artifact of the W3C ReSpec system. > > all i wanted to point out is that just yesterday, the FPWD was published and it does have SHACL in its title, even though it's just UCR and not language design. eric's questionnaire talks about ShEx, so there is some disconnect. maybe adding one or two sentences to the questionnaire would be good enough, but i think the way it is now, other people may end up being slightly confused, just like myself. Quite so. At first read, I wondered whether ShEx was a relic here, that this had been developed some time ago and was being published now to try and aid development of SHACL Requirements... But now I see that is not the case. I'm rather disturbed by how much this feels like a power play, given the W3C imprimatur and prominent mention of the RDF Data Shapes WG, though it came from only one person. The single "(though this questionnaire is not a product of Working Group)" disclaimer is insufficient in my opinion. Even worse -- the Shapes WG was not on the CC list announcing the questionnaire (though it did go to our public feedback list, to which WG members are apparently not auto-subscribed) -- I only read of it because I'm also in LDP-WG! All that said -- I think the general idea behind this survey is a good one, and the basic form is as well. Indeed, the expansion on much of the terminology used here seems likely to have been helpful in evaluating the Requirements we've been talking about the past several weeks. I very much wish this had been put before the Shapes WG as a whole before wide release, so it could have been adjusted to include SPIN, ICV, and any other strongly held perspectives from within the group -- and so be less inherently spun to orient around ShEx. Be seeing you, Ted -- A: Yes. http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html | Q: Are you sure? | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? Ted Thibodeau, Jr. // voice +1-781-273-0900 x32 Senior Support & Evangelism // mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com // http://twitter.com/TallTed OpenLink Software, Inc. // http://www.openlinksw.com/ 10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803 Weblog -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/ LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/ Twitter -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink Google+ -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/ Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 15:40:33 UTC