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

Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work?

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:26:33 -0700
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB02A10DA.CA39B2DB-ON88257E07.0014CDA5-88257E07.001868B1@us.ibm.com>
Hi Holger,
I understand not everybody is familiar with the W3C process and I 
apologize for not making it clearer.

Any document we produce on the "Recommendation Track" is to become a 
standard. Documents such as UC&R and Primers are typically not on the Rec 
track and end up being published as "WG Notes". Specifications on the 
other hand are typically on the Rec track and become standards.

There are exceptions to the latter such as when the WG decides to abandon 
a spec or fails to get enough implementations to exit Candidate 
Recommendation, in which case the WG may choose to publish the spec as a 
WG Note for future reference. These are not standards.

As far as the strawpoll is concerned I certainly didn't mean to imply that 
only the main spec would be a standard and anything that is an add-on 
wouldn't be.

For what it's worth even if we were to produce a single document with 
everything in it there is nothing that says that everything in it would be 
mandatory. We could very well have whole sections that are optional.

Also note that we're free to produce as many documents as we want and they 
can all become part of "the standard". As I said before, for that matter 
(thankfully!) the W3C doesn't enforce a direct mapping between the 
deliverables listed in the charter and the documents we produce. If that 
were the case your draft wouldn't work because the charter lists the 
vocabulary and semantics as two separate deliverables.

Some WG members are clearly uncomfortable with your draft in that it 
doesn't clearly enough (from their point of view at least but I happen to 
agree with them) separate SPARQL from the high level language. Separating 
the two in two different documents would make the division clearer. 
Alternatively you could maybe reorganize your document so that all 
references to SPARQL are moved to a later section as I think Jose 
suggested at some point.

But, again, none of this has any bearings on what is part of the standard 
and what is not. This is in my opinion primarily an editorial matter, 
although option b is more conducive to a clear separation of concerns than 
option a, which is why it is favored by some.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group




From:   Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
To:     public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Date:   03/12/2015 03:01 PM
Subject:        Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March 
work?



Furthermore, what did people actually vote for:

b.1) Only the higher-level language shall become standard and SPARQL 
could be an add-on outside of the standard (e.g. shaclx:sparql)

b.2) Both the higher-level language and SPARQL would become standard but 
in separate deliverables, both normative.

The wording "main specification" leaves both interpretations open. With 
b.1 the obvious consequence will be that nobody will use SPARQL because 
it will be regarded as vendor-specific extension.

Thanks,
Holger




On 3/13/15 6:56 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There were a number of WG members who voted for:
>    b) The main specification shall include the higher-level language
>    constructs only and the rest shall be defined in add-ons.
>
> Can any one describe how this option would work?  Would there be a 
single
> way of defining the meaning of the entire language (main spec and 
add-ons)
> or would there be several ways of the defining what constructs mean?
>
>
>
> peter
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVAf12AAoJECjN6+QThfjzmIQIAJmZd8Z3mxE3klutnEpTehoC
> W07T3dip5/n8JprBK5Lw1qpe8p8SyUyDQ1eVoelKXVnIHq7DWtbc1GFm7u2Rq/sJ
> fw8WFeblQw6nSa4CnV9cxNP5bgItA1A6msj2ZBNx6vh4ZYnYRnPBDqWswYfO4zOY
> sWwYdbrFlSQDct7dz1LPksybWQ4ghceLIUphNJ7lldYz73WsLqzUICOv9f0zn8kX
> ZqJaVt1v94rev2exllmzvefzTm6sVB18sO8zYKE9q1NMdVmf8Y+9eD2IdYqu9X7q
> 8y9KDMJR+4kGZ21EA0m6XzttZCmr54JfI51qNTQdipo8zTNx264cVOy/eb4bJBg=
> =3veP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 04:27:07 UTC

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