Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL

On 02/27/2017 10:05 AM, Bart van Leeuwen wrote:
> 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 ?
>

Frankly, yes.   Well, not that "mention" it, but any paper that shows 
someone read and understood the specs, or that shows an organization 
wants to make use of the specs, yes, we should enumerate those, as 
evidence that the group should be extended.

       -- Sandro

> [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 <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_ <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_
>
> 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_ 
> <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  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>