Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL

I recall now that there was a session on SHACL at the recent Smart Data
conference:
http://smartdata2017.dataversity.net/sessionPop.cfm?confid=110&proposalid=9547

This abstract outlines the attitude I have seen in industry everywhere; an
implicit assumption that SHACL will be available for industrial use, and is
stable enough that you can attend a session to learn about it now.

I was going to post this on the wiki page that Holger started, but looking
at the example, this seems too detailed for a page like that.  Maybe we
should count up how many conference presentations have already been made
explicating SHACL?

Dean

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> On 24/02/2017 10:47, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
> That sounds pretty compelling, to me, Irene.  Is there an indication of
> how many of these folks might be comfortable with the current design vs
> older, discarded versions of SHACL, or even ShEx?
>
> The W3C process definition of Wide Review is here:
> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#wide-review
>
> The overall Transition Process is documented in a format that I find
> overwhelming here: https://services.w3.org/xslt?
> xmlfile=https://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions2015.
> html&xslfile=https://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions2015.
> xsl&docstatus=cr-tr
>
> Can I suggest copying someone else's Transition Request to a new Wiki Page
> (eg copy from https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/AS2_CR) and then start to
> fill it in for SHACL?   In particular, put the kind of details in your
> email below (with links to more details) in the Wide Review section of that
> page?    And look at the "overwhelming" page for more guidance about what
> goes there (in its section titled "Wide Review", etc).
>
> We can use the Transition Request wiki page both as an evolving draft and
> a kind of to-do list for CR.
>
> If we can get that together soon, I should be able to run it by Philippe
> and Ralph and get more of a sense of what else needs to be done to be
> sufficient Wide Review.
>
>
> I have started a wiki page
>
>     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/CR-Transition-Request
>
> where we can collect this info. Any help from WG members is much
> appreciated!
>
> Holger
>
>
>
>
>        -- Sandro
>
>
> On 02/23/2017 07:20 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
>
> Plus today’s post from Stephane Fellah making it 72.
>
> Sandro,
>
> I wonder if this number is considered large enough to serve as an evidence
> of a wide review?
>
> While we could look for the various places to post about SHACL, it seems
> to me that the information about SHACL is already fairly widely known.
>
> In addition to people who have participated through the mailing list, I
> know about two meetups that were focused on SHACL -one in DC about a year
> ago and a more recent one in Berlin hosted by Bayer. Also, Dimitris
> organized a workshop on SHACL during the Semantics 2016 conference in
> Leipzig. He could probably get a list of attendees or at least get a
> number. I was there and I think the room was pretty full with only 3 people
> among the attendees were the working group members.
>
> There have also been some blog posts about SHACL by people outside of the
> working group who are considered to be “gurus” in the data modeling space
> and, thus, have relatively broad readership. For example:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/meet-shacl-next-owl-kurt-cagle
> https://semanticarts.com/blog/rdf-shapes/
>
> Having said this, I am all for marketing SHACL more through posts,
> presentations, raising awareness, etc. I am just not sure to what extent we
> have to do so in order to meet the “wide review” requirement.
>
> Regards,
>
> Irene
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
> Based on today’s input from Sandro, I went through the public mailing list
> and identified people who have posted comments. I have removed a few who
> only posted because they had an announcement of their own to make.
>
> I have also tried to cross-reference against the current or (to my best
> recollection) past participants of the WG. There were a few comments
> (including very recent) submitted by people who have signed up for the
> working group, but have not attended meetings - at least not within the
> last year. I am not sure if this distinction is important, but I made a
> note of it just in case.
>
> In total, 71 people have participated in the discussion on the public
> mailing list. Out of this, 24 people are currently members of the WG or or
> have been at some point in the past members of the WG. Some of the past
> members (notably Peter Pate-Schneider) have continued to participate and
> submit comments after they have left the WG. Others started to participate
> before they became WG members.
>
> Adam Kimball
> Andy Seaborne WG member
> Antoine Isaac
> Arnaud Le Hors past WG member
> Arthur Ryman past WG member
> Bart van Leeuwen WG member
> Bernard Vatant
> Bosch, Thomas
> Dam, Jesse van
> Dan Brickley
> Daniel Fernández Álvarez
> Dave Reynolds
> David Booth
> Dean Allemang WG member
> Dimitris Kontokostas WG member
> Eric Prud'hommeaux W3C staff
> Erik Wilde
> Evren Sirin
> Gray, Alasdair J G
> Gregg Kellogg
> HODGES Jr, John
> Holger Knublauch WG member
> Hugo Manguinhas
> iman.db@web.de
> Iovka Boneva past WG member
> Irene Polikoff WG member
> james anderson
> Jeremy J Carroll
> Jerven Bolleman WG member
> John Snelson
> john.walker
> Jose Emilio Labra Gayo past WG member
> Jose María Alvarez Rodríguez
> Judson Lester
> Karen Coyle past WG member
> Kendall Clark
> Lars Marius Garshol
> M. Scott Marshall
> Magnus Knuth
> Manu Sporny
> Markus Lanthaler WG member, but has been posting on the public list only,
> has not participated in meetings
> Martynas Jusevičius
> Michel Dumontier WG member, but has been posting on the public list only,
> has not participated in meetings
> Miika Alonen
> Nicolas Torzec
> Olivier Corby WG member, but has been posting on the public list only,
> has not participated in meetings
> Olivier Rossel
> Oreste Signore
> Paul Davidson
> Paul Hermans
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider past WG member
> Phil Archer W3C staff
> Richard Cyganiak past WG member
> Robert Powers
> Sandro Hawke W3C staff
> Sebastian Hellmann
> Simon Spero
> Simon Steyskal WG member
> Simon.Cox@csiro.au
> Sławek Staworko WG member, but has been posting on the public list only,
> has not participated in meetings
> Smith, Tim WG member
> Solbrig, Harold R. past WG member
> Steve Ray
> Steve Speicher
> Stuart A. Yeates
> Svensson, Lars
> Ted Thibodeau Jr WG member
> Terry Roach
> Thomas Francart
> Tom Johnson
> Vladimir Alexiev
>
>
>
>
>