W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:44:05 +1000
To: Tom Johnson <johnson.tom@gmail.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56E1F8B5.1010504@topquadrant.com>
On 11/03/2016 8:02, Tom Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Holger Knublauch 
> <holger@topquadrant.com <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 11/03/2016 1:55, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>
>
>         On 3/10/16 3:10 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
>             1) Proposal 4 is poorly motivated. As Peter stated
>             himself, he started
>             this effort to simplify the metamodel. He made changes to
>             the end-user
>             visible syntax in order to "simplify" the metamodel.
>             However, there was
>             no problem with the end-user visible syntax to begin with.
>             There was no
>             need to change it, and the new syntax is a step backwards.
>             The metamodel
>             is far less important than the user-facing syntax.
>
>
>         Simplifing the model is a valid motivation. Otherwise we
>         wouldn't have suggested to have a ShEx user interface. As that
>         interface may not be forthcoming, it would be preferable to
>         have SHACL be easily understandable. Otherwise it can only be
>         easily used with a UI on top of it, and that limits its use to
>         those who have access to an application with an interface. I
>         think that would be the death of SHACL.
>
>
>     +1
>
>     But can you explain what your paragraph has to do with mine?
>
>
> Holger,
>
> It is clear to me from previous messages to this list that Peter 
> believes metamodel simplification generally benefits language design. 
> Your opinion is that the exercise hasn't borne fruit in proposal 4; 
> that seems fine. But your point #1 attacking motivation reads as petty 
> and disingenuous. The claim that metamodel complexity is tied to 
> language comprehension doesn't seem so outlandish as to justify 
> beginning your analysis by claiming that the whole effort is doomed as 
> "poorly motivated".

Whatever people write in emails is subject to misinterpretation. Emails 
need to be compact but then the intention does not always come across. 
If you continue reading my email, you will notice why I pointed this 
out: The problem is that we are now spending a lot of time on something 
(syntax changes) that was not even raised as an ISSUE beforehand. I did 
not say this is doomed, but I am not aware of anyone requesting syntax 
changes. The task that I was given was to clean up the metamodel, 
leading to proposal 3. Proposal 4 is now opening up many many other 
topics. I was hoping we could avoid these potential time sinks and rat 
holes, but I see that this isn't happening, and we are now even having 
metadiscussions. If that's where the group wants to spend time on, then 
let the fun begin... :)

>
> I've been following this work for many months, and have frequently 
> been dismayed at the level of hostility and bad faith that is apparent 
> in the group's communications. I hope it can improve.

Yes there are plenty of bad examples in this mailing list, 
unfortunately. I don't see what I did wrong in this particular instance 
though.

Holger
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 22:44:42 UTC

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