- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:06:23 -0500
- To: Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <844d3a8e-7f7b-8ddc-1f90-861cd21c1ce2@w3.org>
In this case, because the group is also asking to be extended, I think
it's better to err on the side of detail. I think it'd be good to
include a bullet point with hyperlink for each thing like this. More
tersely, one could include just the hyperlink, as part of a
paragraph. Eg: SHACL has been the primary focus of sessions at
_Smart Data conference_, _Some Other conf_, .... etc (where those are
links that, if clicked, prove that it's true -- at least the
announcement, preferably a summary/blog post that includes details of
how many people attended, the slides, etc.)
-- Sandro
On 02/27/2017 09:57 AM, Dean Allemang wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
> <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://www.linkedin.com/pulse/meet-shacl-next-owl-kurt-cagle>
>>> https://semanticarts.com/blog/rdf-shapes/
>>> <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 27 February 2017 17:06:34 UTC