Re: AW: SHACL Rules?

Holger, WG,

The Rules idea is interesting, but my overwhelming preference is to
first finish the constraint aspects of SHACL and deliver a spec, test
suite, etc.

There are many good reasons for limiting what we produce initially.
Even with SPARQL, the Update language was produced later.

-- Arthur

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Holger Knublauch
<holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 18/12/2015 6:40 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>
> People are free to collaborate on whatever they want obviously but to
> publish anything as coming from the WG, even as a WG Note, requires
> agreement from the WG. This would therefore require people to review the
> document and approve publication which would have some cost, although
> clearly less for a Note than if it were part of a spec on the REC track.
>
> I have to admit not to be keen on adding anything to our plate at this point
> and while some people are interested I didn't get the feeling that this was
> true for everybody.
>
>
> This nails down a major problem that I see in the W3C process. *Everybody*
> must agree. A single person can derail basically everything, as long as he
> or she doesn't upset the chair. As it happens, I am feeling very negative
> about any Abstract Syntax. Others will find reasons to vote against adding
> rules. Does this mean that we shouldn't explore and eventually publish any
> of these deliverables, as long as they are optional? Some people may see a
> lot of value in an Abstract Syntax (e.g. for conceptual clarity). Others may
> have experienced practical use cases for rules and wouldn't want to miss
> this unique opportunity. Who can tell that one is more right than the other,
> from their own little shells? No individual is smart enough to make these
> decisions, yet the process assumes and even promotes this.
>
> I am sure this topic has been discussed countless times. I am sure some
> people will compare the W3C process with open source projects, that
> sometimes also produce useful (de-facto) standards. Their difference is that
> the latter put more emphasis on evolution and external feedback, rather than
> giving all power to individuals.
>
> Holger
>
>
>
> If you think the situation is different we could ask again. An alternative
> is for you to create a Community Group. CGs are very light weight structures
> that would give you a space to work on this. See
> https://www.w3.org/community/groups/
>
> I'd be happy to give you more info on CGs if you'd like.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM
> Software Group
>
>
> Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote on 12/18/2015 05:35:46 AM:
>
>> From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
>> To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>,
>> public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>> Date: 12/18/2015 05:35 AM
>> Subject: AW: SHACL Rules?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I would love to work on this.
>>
>> simon
>>
>>
>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> Von: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
>> Datum: 18.12.2015 14:31 (GMT+01:00)
>> An: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>> Betreff: SHACL Rules?
>>
>> I have a process question. During the meeting it turned out that at
>> least three WG members were interested in a SHACL extension to represent
>> rules. I believe this is a low hanging fruit, similar to SPIN rules. For
>> example
>>
>> ex:MyShape
>>      a sh:Shape ;
>>      sh:scopeClass ex:Person ;
>>      shr:rule [
>>          sh:sparql """
>>              CONSTRUCT {
>>                  ?this ex:age ?age .
>>              }
>>              WHERE {
>>                  ?this ex:birthYear ?birthYear .
>>                  BIND (ex:currentYear() - ?birthYear AS ?age)
>>              } """
>>      ] .
>>
>> SHACL already provides all key building blocks, even the concept of
>> SPARQL binding and scoping.
>>
>> I understand the concern that this is potentially outside of the
>> charter, and that we don't want to spend precious WG resources on this.
>> However, assuming that the interested parties create a separate
>> deliverable on this "in their spare time", is there any format in which
>> we could publish this (as a note) within the umbrella of the Shapes WG?
>> The WG is also discussing Abstract Syntax and Compact Syntax documents
>> that appear complementary and optional for implementers.
>>
>> (To keep it simple we could in the first pass exclude any inter-rule
>> dependencies, i.e. not even do fixpoint iteration. We use this a lot for
>> data transformations/mapping, where a single pass is sufficient.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Holger
>>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 7 January 2016 22:44:48 UTC