Re: ISSUE-23: SHACL is already a modeling language

Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 12/17/2015 01:54:58 PM:

> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date: 12/17/2015 01:55 PM
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-23: SHACL is already a modeling language
> 
> Arnaud, Peter,
> 
> I believe we can stop this discussion here. Peter has made it clear that 

> he would switch to the ShEx camp if I get any of the proposed 
> compromises through, and this risks derailing the whole SHACL working 
> group

For the record, this is the RDF Data Shapes WG, not the SHACL WG. :-)

> , leading to complete failure, or at the minimum a massive loss of 
> time.

For what it's worth, while I understand this would be true for you and TQ, 
from a W3C point of view switching from one technology to another in 
itself doesn't imply failure. It would only be a complete failure if the 
WG didn't deliver anything in the end. This being said, assuming that it 
would lead to TQ leaving the WG I would agree that it would mean failure 
to deliver something we can all live with.

> 
> Given that the original decision to start with my (LDOM) approach was 
> already a close call, and the voting situation means that ShEx people 
> form a solid voting block (regardless of how many people they represent 
> in the real world), I am left with no choice but to give up. This is the 

> simple reality of how W3C processes work, for better or worse.
> 

I have to admit being puzzled by that statement. You seem to be saying 
that it's a failure of the W3C process that you find yourself in that 
situation. If anything, it's thanks to the W3C process which is geared 
towards consensus that you've been allowed to keep fighting this battle 
for so long. In other organizations this would have been shut down a long 
time ago based on a simple majority vote. So I don't think it is right for 
you to imply that somehow the W3C process has done you wrong.

> Please close ISSUE-23 and overrule me. I am willing to continue as 
> editor and collaborate with the ShEx people to incorporate the missing 
> features that they needed so that the WG can continue with its current 
> set up (e.g. starting with Arthur's proposal). I believe we have made 
> some very good progress during the last three days, and accept that I 
> cannot get 100% of my preferences through.
> 

Thanks. I will put this issue on the agenda of an upcoming call which I 
hope more people will attend, including Ted who missed the F2F, so we can 
hopefully get this one behind.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group

> Thanks
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 17/12/2015 9:10 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > There are so many different aspects of the “world” that could be 
modeled -
> > from business processes to simulation of behavior and functions in the
> > engineering and manufacturing. For this reason, I find the use of the 
word
> > “modeling” in this discussion indeed very confusing.
> >
> > I believe you are talking about KR, not modeling in general. A classic
> > definition of knowledge representation is:
> >
> > Knowledge representation and reasoning (KR) is the field of artificial
> > intelligence (AI) dedicated to representing information about the 
world in
> > a form that a computer system can utilize to solve complex tasks such 
as
> > diagnosing a medical condition or having a dialog in a natural 
language.
> >
> >
> > This definition, as far as I know, has its roots in the expert 
systems.
> > Using this classic definition, it would be a stretch to call SHACL a
> > knowledge representation language. I don’t think it should be 
positioned
> > or marketed in this way and I don’t think anyone is advocating this. 
But a
> > modeling language - yes, most certainly.
> >
> > The boundary fuzziness comes in the actual use. I have been working 
with
> > RDF and OWL and with customers using RDF and OWL for many years. Only 
a
> > small percentage of them are using these languages to create expert
> > systems. Many more are using them to bring data together. They are
> > leveraging, RDF’s flexibility. In bringing the data together, they 
need to
> > describe information (do data modeling) and, often, validate it. In my
> > experience, majority of users today are using RDF and OWL for data
> > modeling. And it would be a big  negative for them not to be able to
> > somehow leverage the models they have built and have some kind of a
> > forward path to SHACL.
> >
> > (As an aside, expert systems are sort of passé these days and where AI
> > used to essentially stand for knowledge representation, today it is
> > increasingly stands for machine learning, neural networks and other 
things
> > that may have no or very light connection to knowledge 
representation).
> >
> > Further, the boundary between knowledge representation and data 
modeling
> > is not, by any means, set in stone. I believe you are well aware of 
this
> > fuzziness because you were a proponent of using OWL Closed Word for 
data
> > validation purposes. That is a good example of a language that was,
> > perhaps, originally conceived as a KR language being used for data
> > modeling.
> >
> > Users have a range of needs when they develop software applications 
and
> > their preference is to use a single modeling framework whenever 
possible
> > or, at minimum, have an integration that is flexible.
> >
> > Another good example is UML. It was originally designed as a graphical
> > modeling notation for objects (as in in OO programming). Methods,
> > interaction diagrams, etc. Initially, it wasn’t really for data 
modeling,
> > but this is what the majority of people use it for today. The use of 
UML
> > for data modeling far outweights its use for anything else. And some
> > people have used UML to describe business processes. And some people 
have
> > used it for knowledge representation. Each of these are sizable
> > communities. In practice, people will adopt whatever they have 
available
> > to accomplish the tasks they want to accomplish. This is the reality 
and
> > it is a good reality.
> >
> > Why should some philosophical beliefs of one person or a very small 
group
> > of people in certain (often obscure and even outdated) "pure 
principles"
> > stand in a way of usefulness and progress?
> >
> >
> > Irene Polikoff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/17/15, 11:54 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" 
<pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> My view is that modelling language, in this context, is modelling of 
the
> >> world, i.e., representation, and not data modelling.  So I count
> >> first-order
> >> logic and OWL as modelling languages.  I also count RDFS as a 
modelling
> >> language in this sense.
> >>
> >> This is quite different, I agree, from data modelling, and maybe that 
is
> >> the
> >> source of some misunderstandings.
> >>
> >> I would view a data validation language as a language designed to 
write
> >> constructs for data validation.  Data validation, in my view, ranges 
from
> >> the
> >> quite mundane, e.g., validating check digits, to the sophisticated,
> >> including
> >> things like checking that data conforms to a specific shape.
> >>
> >> peter
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/17/2015 08:18 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> >>> I know what data validation is as a process. I am not at all 
familiar
> >>> with
> >>> the term “data validation language”.
> >>>
> >>> Is it something that is well understood in the industry? Does it 
have a
> >>> commonly accepted definition? I don’t believe I ever came across it. 
If
> >>> you search for this term on Google, no definition is found.
> >>>
> >>> “Data modeling language”, on the other hand, is a very common term.
> >>> There
> >>> are many hits for a “data modeling language” including
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Data_modeling_languages. As 
you
> >>> can
> >>> see, people view languages like RelaxNG, XML Schema, etc. which are 
all
> >>> used for data validation as data modeling languages. This is the 
view
> >>> that, in my experience, is prevalent in the industry. Modeling is 
always
> >>> done for a purpose. And data validation is one of the key purposes 
for
> >>> doing data modeling.
> >>>
> >>> What is your definition of a modeling language?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Irene
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/17/15, 10:57 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider"
> >>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I view SHACL as a validation language.  I view validation as quite
> >>>> different
> >>> >from modelling.   I don't think that SHACL should be a modelling
> >>>> language, and
> >>>> I do not agree that the shape language in SHACL is a modelling
> >>>> language.
> >>>> I do
> >>>> agree that validation and modelling are similar - my input to the
> >>>> working
> >>>> group used (nearly) the same syntax for both.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am now hearing statements that the current version of SHACL is a
> >>>> modelling
> >>>> language, and that SHACL is already being marketed as a modelling
> >>>> language.  I
> >>>> am also hearing arguments to the effect that more modelling 
features
> >>>> are
> >>>> needed in SHACL and that there is no reason to not include them 
because
> >>>> SHACL
> >>>> is already a modelling language.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe that the current version of SHACL is not a modelling
> >>>> language.
> >>>> However, technical judgments of this sort are not the only ones 
that
> >>>> matter.
> >>>> Marketing also matters.
> >>>>
> >>>> So it may be reasonable to base SHACL on ShEx instead of SPIN.  It
> >>>> certainly
> >>>> appears that the ShEx community does not view ShEx as a modelling
> >>>> language.
> >>>>
> >>>> peter
> >>>>
> >>>> PS:  I don't think that I have misunderstood Holger's email.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/17/2015 06:52 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> >>>>> Peter,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You either misunderstood Holger¹s e-mail or are pretending to
> >>>>> misunderstand it. I know you are smart, so I suspect it is latter
> >>>>> rather
> >>>>> than former. If so, I find your use of demagogic tactics very
> >>>>> regrettable
> >>>>> and unworthy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The fact that SHACL is a modeling language has nothing to do with 
what
> >>>>> it
> >>>>> is based on. Rather, it has to do with the capabilities it 
provides.
> >>>>> It
> >>>>> provides capabilities for modeling data.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As Ted said during December 3rd meeting:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "<TallTed> tallted:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ... a shapes language is a modelling language so I don't 
understand
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> objection
> >>>>>   what else is a modelling language, but a way to describe a bunch 
of
> >>>>> shapes? what else is a shape description language, but a way to 
model
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> space?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you don¹t think the capabilities provided by SHACL are needed, 
I
> >>>>> believe you should have objected against the working group instead 
of
> >>>>> participating in it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It may be that given the fact that SHACL provides modeling
> >>>>> capabilities,
> >>>>> your goal in participating was to ensure that SHACL is based on 
OWL. I
> >>>>> believe you stated that preference in the beginning. I also 
believe
> >>>>> you
> >>>>> ³given up² on such a position for a variety of reasons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see three options:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Pretend that SHACL is not a modeling language and hope that no 
one
> >>>>> will
> >>>>> not see through this. To me this is counterproductive and 
dishonest.
> >>>>> 2. Say that RDFS/OWL are completely separate and can¹t be used
> >>>>> together. I
> >>>>> see such approach as only serving a purpose of splitting the 
community
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> introducing a big discontinuity
> >>>>> 3. Provide a way for people to use them together to address the 
full
> >>>>> range
> >>>>> of needs these two modeling approaches can deliver on
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Irene Polikoff
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 12/17/15, 9:02 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider"
> >>>>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you for pointing out that the current design of SHACL is
> >>>>>> largely
> >>>>>> based
> >>>>>> on SPIN and that it is your contention that this means that the
> >>>>>> current
> >>>>>> design
> >>>>>> of SHACL makes it be a modelling language.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Arnaud, can we use this a s new information to reopen the 
decision to
> >>>>>> base
> >>>>>> SHACL on SPIN instead of ShEx?  ShEx is looking much better to me
> >>>>>> now.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> peter
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 12/16/2015 11:32 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> >>>>>>> During yesterday's discussions, several people agreed that the 
real
> >>>>>>> topic
> >>>>>>> behind ISSUE-23 ("classes vs shapes") is that some members 
believe
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> the WG
> >>>>>>> should not produce a competitor to already established W3C 
modeling
> >>>>>>> languages.
> >>>>>>> We believe the WG has already "failed" on this respect, because
> >>>>>>> SHACL
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>> already be used as a modeling language.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Instead of using classes, people can use shapes (with
> >>>>>>> sh:scopeClass).
> >>>>>>> Instead
> >>>>>>> of defining OWL restrictions, people can use property 
constraints.
> >>>>>>> Ranges have
> >>>>>>> become sh:datatype and sh:class. The syntax of SHACL only spells
> >>>>>>> out a
> >>>>>>> different way of how most people interpret OWL anyway. There is 
an
> >>>>>>> almost
> >>>>>>> one-to-one mapping between OWL and SHACL features.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> By actively blocking a realistic bridge between those two 
worlds,
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> SHACL
> >>>>>>> community risks producing two unconnected silos. At TopQuadrant 
we
> >>>>>>> would like
> >>>>>>> to promote an evolutionary strategy in which existing RDFS and 
OWL
> >>>>>>> ontologies
> >>>>>>> can be expanded to be also meaningful for closed-world 
constraint
> >>>>>>> checking.
> >>>>>>> The choice between using owl:Restriction or sh:property (or 
both!)
> >>>>>>> should be
> >>>>>>> left to the user community, and not be pre-determined by a 
handful
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>> who believe they can predict the future from their little WG. 
The
> >>>>>>> approach of
> >>>>>>> attaching constraints to classes has already been successfully
> >>>>>>> explored
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> SPIN. It is perfectly fine to combine the inferencing role of 
OWL
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> constraint checking role of SHACL into the same models.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I consider this topic absolutely mission-critical for SHACL. I
> >>>>>>> appreciate that
> >>>>>>> those who have no strong opinion at least not block the view 
point
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> TopQuadrant and many of our customers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Holger
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> PS: At some stage we had discussed to produce a document to 
compare
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> roles
> >>>>>>> of SHACL and OWL. What ever happened to that? Without answering
> >>>>>>> what a
> >>>>>>> modeling language really is, we should not close ISSUE-23.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >
> 
>