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

Re: WG Meeting 2017-01-04

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:55:49 +1000
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9bd3a26b-4347-d525-19e9-8784799cde6b@topquadrant.com>
Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting this week:

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.01.04

Note that this is entirely my personal opinion but since we don't have a 
chair right now I wanted to create a starting point. In the absence of a 
better process, anybody is welcome to suggest or make edits.

Regards,
Holger

PS: Currently the link to this new meeting doesn't show up at 
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page#Meetings even though 
the wiki claims to have accepted my edits. Possibly this page is 
auto-generated and some other process is needed to update this section? 
Anybody with W3C experience knows how this works?


On 2/01/2017 10:10, Holger Knublauch 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/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 Tuesday, 3 January 2017 00:56:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 3 January 2017 00:56:31 UTC