Re: WG Meeting 2017-01-04

Hi all,

Best wishes to all.

I will not be able to make the next call since I will still be on holiday
with limited internet connection. I return from holiday on the 11th but my
landing time will be close to the meeting time. I will do my best to make
it. In the mean time I will try to vote on the wiki, but that will be later
this week when I have better connection hopefully.

Cheers,
Pano


On Jan 2, 2017 07:12, "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:

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/2
016Dec/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