Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL

Hi,

Phil Archer ( in the cc ) organized a smart vocabularies workshop [1] in 
Amsterdam in December 2016 a lot of talks at that workshop mentioned the 
work of the Shapes working group in one form or another.
I was genuinely surprised by the 'adoption rate' should we extract all the 
papers that mention the work of the working group ?

[1] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/agenda


Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards
Bart van Leeuwen


twitter: @semanticfire
tel. +31(0)6-53182997
Netage B.V.
http://netage.nl

Esdoornstraat 3
3461ER Linschoten
The Netherlands




From:   Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com>
To:     Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc:     "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Date:   27-02-2017 15:59
Subject:        Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL
Sent by:        deanallemang@gmail.com



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