Fwd: Re: ShEx questionnaire (was Re: RDF validation questionnaire)

(Moved to WG mailing list).

So now the ShEx support emails are coming in. Great. Can I now also 
please get a W3C email address and host a SPIN questionnaire on a W3C 
server? (Not a real question).

Sorry, but the situation in which the W3C staff contact has vested 
interests in his own approach is not helpful to consensus finding. This 
is not a level playing field.

Meanwhile I am not sure that I want to answer this further. The argument 
that SPARQL is not readable is questionable. Doing a negation in my 
SHACL draft currently looks like

     !sh:hasShape(?this, ex:Shape)

Explaining all this to people who don't have the full background of our 
spec work is time consuming, especially if it is being contrasted with 
something like ShEx compact syntax which was being developed exactly for 
certain use cases but which is not part of any currently considered 
requirement.

Holger


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:  Re: ShEx questionnaire (was Re: RDF validation questionnaire)
Date:  Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:00:43 +0200
From:  M. Scott Marshall <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>
To:  Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
CC:  public-rdf-shapes@w3.org



> yet the document doesn't mention that one way to achieve that would be to use SPARQL.

If you look at the live examples, there are several options to
generate SPARQL (under Translations, on the right), such as for a
"validating query". As I'm sure you are aware, the corresponding
SPARQL is generally much more verbose and therefore not as appealing
to a broader audience - even if they are familiar with SPARQL. The
ShEx demo makes the issues being polled much more concrete and the
questionnaire is made more interesting and dynamic by engaging the
reader through interaction with the examples, mouse-over highlighting,
etc. In my view, if you removed the ShEx from the questionnaire, you
would elicit less feedback.

At MAASTRO Clinic, we have used the SPARQL generation of the ShEx tool
to validate clinical data from radiation oncology. ShEx serves as a
more concise and human-readable version of the schema than SPARQL
while enabling the application of SPARQL, as I hope is eventually
achievable with SHACL.

-Scott

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Holger Knublauch
<holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> If such things are published on a w3.org address by a W3C staff member who
> is also W3C contact for the Shapes WG, and the page clearly states that this
> will be input to the WG, then at a minimum the WG should have been informed
> about this initiative in advance. Why do we have an ISSUE tracker that
> everyone is supposed to use for important decisions? Why do we have weekly
> meetings?
>
> Having said this, it is always good to collect feedback. Yet by framing the
> questionnaire in certain ways, it is easy to get the answers that you
> intended in advance. For example of course people will say they need
> negation, yet the document doesn't mention that one way to achieve that
> would be to use SPARQL.
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
>
>
> On 4/16/15 4:30 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I am rather disappointed that the questionnaire is so tied to ShEx,
>> particularly considering the subject of the email that went out.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned the only information that the working group will
>> be
>> able to take away from the questionnaire is what people think should be
>> included in ShEx.  This may have very little to do with what should be
>> included in SHACL.
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/15/2015 10:09 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>
>>> In some Mayo grant work, I have prepared a questionnaire on the
>>> expressivity of shape expressions. It presents a high-level language for
>>> expressing RDF constraints, explains a number of the technical points,
>>> and asks the user for which features and technical approaches are
>>> important to their work and their view of what will make the language
>>> successful. There are a couple places where you can click for extra
>>> geekiness, in case the baseline geekiness was insufficient.
>>>
>>> I'd like people to fill out the form imagining their immediate uses for
>>> RDF validation as well as those that may come with new markets enabled by
>>> the existence of such RDF validating tooling. The form will record your
>>> results whenever you hit submit so you can easily revisit your answers
>>> after reflection.
>>>
>>> This work is supported in part by a NIH U01 grant – caCDE-QA
>>> (1U01CA180940-01A1).
>>>
>>> On the top of my game here... here's the link:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2015/ShExpressivity
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v2
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVLq4oAAoJECjN6+QThfjzAuIH/3p+ldIXpinn5b8jLT1AJCsx
>> pqje/nO3bF1YCf9klM4FSlqs6XWexomK+dbyr8DbMORm7u3ez/Z+g1xr07eWRu6U
>> X1GIATSBhASgKjG2fxtc3QYURFi3qw32CyiHe0QmfM9XcoCn9BZnKlClwPOZoimk
>> 7qER0R6AbH+d6aFbvLPYOlOS2w+vtPBA9lpJPjzTby2rR/V+Oz015xag59j9+JDu
>> R/XGVdW9CTG0MZXMIT7ys2LKFjl5nj/F2f55+ZUn9bh5jFbyvb2Lmba2EmbzTjp5
>> b0ovPTcMemAr1jVXLV+REpGkyMUWp0iFugwi4i446XaI7r6A4Xa6XsO4ucJVVP8=
>> =lQNY
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>
>



-- 
M. Scott Marshall, PhD
MAASTRO clinic, http://www.maastro.nl/en/1/77/strategy-plan.aspx
http://radiomics.org
http://eurecaproject.eu/
http://semantic-dicom.org/
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/m-scott-marshall/5/464/a22