W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > January 2017

WG Meeting 2017-01-04

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 10:10:37 +1000
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <686026fc-f7db-4ed6-230b-7988ac498ed7@topquadrant.com>
Hi all,

with best wishes for the new year, let's hope 2017 will start better 
than the last year ended. Meanwhile there have been some fruitful 
discussions with W3C management and SHACL is far from dead. It is 
however crucial that the remaining and new members of the WG demonstrate 
that there is enough energy in the group to finish the work. Therefore, 
it is IMHO important to show a heart beat by having the regular meeting 
this week (Wednesday, January 4) even if some people are still on 
vacation. I believe the W3C is still looking for a new chair, so we may 
need to organize this meeting ourselves in the meantime (I do have the 
access key to start the WebEx).

Here are topics that I would like to see covered, in continuation of the 
two controversial issues from the previous meeting. I have been 
surprised by the votes and hope we can build better compromises than 
what happened during the last meeting.

1) Discuss 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/0063.html 
and moving three of the less important SPARQL features into a separate 
document. This document would have its own life cycle. I would not 
oppose such a move.

2) Reopen ISSUE-211. Discuss 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/0064.html 
and hopefully approve switching to the new, cleaner branch (if only as 
an intermediate step). Further discuss whether we may have enough time 
to do another round of metamodel refactoring (W3C has hinted at a 
possible 3-6 months extension which could make this possible). If the 
majority of people is in favor of the switch, I will not vote -1 either.

3) Related: ISSUE-216 and what to do with the restructuring of the spec 
suggested by Peter, see

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/0053.html

If the majority of people prefer this style then we can certainly try to 
migrate to it. We could for example keep much of our current prose with 
examples etc but turn them into non-normative sections. This way only 
the compact formal sections would really matter but the document would 
still be readable to newcomers.

As usual, the list of open issues can be discussed (and voted upon) at

     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals

More votes have accumulated there and I still believe most open issues 
could be closed very quickly.

Cheers
Holger
Received on Monday, 2 January 2017 00:11:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 January 2017 00:11:15 UTC