W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL?

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:23:23 -0500
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150306172322.GB32617@w3.org>
* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-03-06 08:38-0800]
> 
> 
> On 03/06/2015 07:23 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > 
> > On Mar 6, 2015 7:17 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider"
> > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> 
> > It seems that the working group is supposed to be pushing towards 
> > publication of a SHACL specification document in the near future.   Does 
> > anyone have any alternatives to a SPARQL-based semantics for SHACL that
> > they would like to put forward?
> > 
> > Yes, I am aware that there are three potential semantics from the Shape 
> > Expressions community that might be alternatives, but is anyone going to 
> > champion either the current version of one of these semantics or have a 
> > modified version available in time for consideration by the working
> > group?
> > 
> >> I thought the plan was to publish the primer and to work some more on
> >> the semantics before publication.
> 
> I thought so too a while ago, and then there was all this debate over the
> primer and then the primer appears to have been shelved and this new
> document from Holger appeared and there was this apparent push to turn it
> into a FPWD.
> 
> Holger's document is listed on the web page, and appears as an editors draft
> when viewed.  At F2F2 there was a chair proposal to aim at publishing a
> SHACL spec, which was not approved, largely because there were several
> comments that the document needed considerable work, but work on the
> document has been going forward very quickly so this reason for delay is
> mostly overcome.  At the teleconference on 26 February there was a chair
> comment that there is a rush in getting a FPWD of the spec out and some
> discussion of what needs to be done to the document before FPWD.
> 
> Meanwhile the primer appears to have languished.

I'm not sure I agree. I recall having a fairly short list of TODOs in
the critical path of FPWD after the F2F:
  s/instance/RDF representation of an instance/ per discussion 2015-02-17T21:06:23Z
  change the name to SHACL per WG decision
    change the namespace to sh:
  move the abstract syntax into another doc
implemented in
https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commits/gh-pages/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates.html  

I then moved the old LDOM primer to ldom-primer.html and moved
no-class-templates to index.html and changed it to and ED to reflect
the WG decision.


> So it seems to me that there is indeed a rush to get a spec document to FPWD
> even as there are disapprovals of major portions of the spec in the
> document.  I'm one of the members of the working group that have been
> voicing and writing disapprovals, but I'm certainly not the only one.
> However, I'm the only one who has presented a worked-out counterproposal
> 
> So if you believe, like I do, that the current spec document is not going in
> the right general direction you have the following choices:
> 1/ Throw in with me.
> 2/ Put forward your own proposal, either for a different spec or for major
> changes to the current spec document.
> 3/ Try to slow the rush to FPWD for the spec until something better comes along.
> 
> If you are going for 3/ then you should believe that something better will
> come along very shortly.  If you are going for 2/ you should realize that at
> this point you need something that addresses the vast majority of the
> approved and nearly-approved requirements.
> 
> peter
> 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Friday, 6 March 2015 17:23:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:17 UTC