Re: WG Meeting 2017-01-04

On 3/01/2017 23:24, Bart van Leeuwen wrote:
> Hi Holger,
>
> As much as I admire your quest for progress, I think that the outlook 
> of the WG is something that is worth using the full agenda for.

Yes, that's what the item "WG Outlook" is for. Whether we can make 
progress on this largely depends on who will attend the meeting. Some 
people are still on vacation. I hope Eric can make it. The most sensible 
way forward would be to get an extension, but without "official" W3C 
staff on the call we can only speculate about this. My understanding is 
that a prerequisite for an extension is that W3C sees enough activity in 
the WG, which is why I suggested additional items for the agenda.

The next three items on the agenda (3-5) are aimed at building 
compromises with those who felt outvoted in the previous meeting. The 
remaining items (6-12) are low hanging fruits that we can hopefully 
close to make some progress. I picked them based on the existing votes 
on the Proposals page.

Holger


>
>
> Unfortunately I probably won't be able to make it, but Nicky van 
> Oorschot who is on our team will join.
> He has implemented a library for one of our projects.
>
> 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: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 03-01-2017 01:57
> Subject: Re: WG Meeting 2017-01-04
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> 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#Meetingseven 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
> >
>
>
>
>