Re: On how to deal with issues (was ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements)

> Peter was conscious enough to let us know what his position was on the 
issues that were on the agenda of calls he might not be able to attend. 

I meant "Peter was conscientious enough" obviously, although I assume he 
was conscious too. :-)
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group




From:   Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
To:     Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc:     public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Date:   10/19/2015 11:18 AM 
Subject:        Re: On how to deal with issues (was ISSUE-98 (cont'd): 
Further syntax  improvements)



Hi Holger,

There are other ways we could try to work for sure. Whether they would be 
more efficient I don't know.

Some WGs make all their resolutions offline and only use calls to discuss 
things. It allows everybody to vote and take part in the resolution 
process. It isn't necessarily faster though.

It's true that the way we dealt with requirements and user stories was 
pretty efficient but I think issues are inherently more controversial and 
resolving them is harder.

I think your depiction of the situation is inaccurate. Peter was conscious 
enough to let us know what his position was on the issues that were on the 
agenda of calls he might not be able to attend. As a result we didn't make 
progress on the proposals he objected to, but the situation would have 
been the same if he had voted on a wiki rather than in an email.

But we could give the wiki a try. Maybe we'll be able to knock off the non 
controversial ones faster.
--
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:        10/16/2015 04:36 PM
Subject:        Re: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements



I will create this ticket, NP. One thing I do wonder though: In the early 
days of the requirement phase, we had an IMHO much more efficient process, 
in which we went through a long list of requirements within three months 
or so. I doubt that we would be able to produce such a list with our 
current process:

    https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements

We had a relatively efficient format to discuss proposals, and try to 
resolve them outside of the (inefficient) weekly meeting interval. I 
believe it would be good to bring such a page back, maybe called "Open 
Proposals" where anyone can write down their proposals and people can 
signal their straw poll votes.

How is it acceptable that the group is close to a stand-still if one 
member is absent from meetings for two weeks? In the age of the internet, 
I trust we can do more work in parallel, using the wiki.

Holger


On 10/17/15 3:56 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
I for one have been wondering why we needed such a heavy structure so I 
would very welcome these improvements.
I do think this needs to be raised as a formal issue and proposal. I know 
this feels like unnecessary bureaucracy but this is what it takes to work 
in a group as opposed to work on your own. :-)
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>wrote on 10/15/2015 09:39:20 PM:

> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 10/15/2015 09:40 PM
> Subject: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements
> 
> Now that we have a more consistent framework for node constraints, I 
> noticed that we could further improve the syntax for various other 
> constraint types:
> 
> Currently:
> 
> ex:NotExampleShape
>      a sh:Shape ;
>      sh:constraint [
>          a sh:NotConstraint ;
>          sh:shape [
>              sh:property [
>                  sh:predicate ex:property ;
>                  sh:minCount 1 ;
>              ] ;
>          ]
>      ] .
> 
> 
> Suggested:
> 
> ex:NotExampleShape
>      a sh:Shape ;
>      sh:constraint [
>          sh:not [
>              sh:property [
>                  sh:predicate ex:property ;
>                  sh:minCount 1 ;
>              ] ;
>          ]
>      ] .
> 
> Similar for sh:and and sh:or.
> 
> Closed constraints could become:
> 
> ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape
>      a sh:Shape ;
>      sh:constraint [
>          sh:closed true ;
>          sh:ignoredProperties (sh:nodeShape rdf:type) ;
>      ] ;
> 
> (which would also help with Karen's recent issue because she could say 
> sh:closed=false explicitly).
> 
> Which would only leave the 4 property pair constraints as ugly 
> ducklings. We could decide to make them directional and then use 
> sh:property, e.g.
> 
>      ex:EqualExampleShape
>          a sh:Shape ;
>          sh:property [
>              sh:predicate ex:firstName ;
>              sh:equals ex:givenName ;
>          ]
>      ] .
> 
> which would make perfect sense for sh:lessThan anyway.
> 
> Does anyone have issues with such changes? They almost feel like 
> editorial changes, but if needed I could raise a new formal ISSUE, put 
> this to the end of the queue and wait... :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Holger
> 
>