Re: core remaining issues

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

>
> On Jan 6, 2017, at 2:21 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas <
> kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
>
>
> 170 - SPARQL specifies a different reading for exists and blank nodes
> than needed for SHACL
> <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/170>
>
>
>
> As per https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-
> shapes-wg/2016Dec/0047.html, at this point, SPARQ CG came up with two
> proposals for addressing Issue 170 and is awaiting input from us as to
> which approach best satisfies our requirements.
>
> With this, I believe the action item for the working group is to pick one
> of the proposals and go with it. Andy, is this correct?
>
> My vote is for proposal B as described in https://w3c.github.io/
> sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html#an-alternative-to-substitution
>

In this case I would trust Andy's suggestion and go with whatever he
proposes.

>
> proposal: Move sections 5 & 6 into a separate document and target it for
> REC track as well.
> (this is orthogonal to making sections 7+ non-normative)
>
> Agenda item: discuss the addition of a new editor to help
>
> comment: Ted and Andy suggested that the editors decide based on what is
> easier. Splitting will require more work for sure but imo, the sooner we do
> the splitting the more time we will have to make both documents in a good
> shape
>
> B) Metamodel
> Issue 211 is re-opened and the sooner this is resolved the better.
> Proposal B1: Adopt a variation of Peter's suggestion as described here:
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?
> title=Proposals#ISSUE-211:_Eliminate_property_constraints
> Proposal B2: Accept peter's proposal as is (without my variation)
>
> wrt (B2), one of the main reasons of my variation was to keep the UI
> related properties for property-related shapes/constraints.
> However, a recent comment indicates that there are use cases for using
> them with focus node constraints as well https://lists.w3.org/Archives/
> Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Jan/0000.html
> both have a +1 from me but I would now favour B2 over B1
>
>
> These two are indeed the heavy hitters. Since consensus at the last
> meeting was that there is not enough time between now and the end of
> January to implement such major changes and meet the current CR deadline,
> these issues would be resolved differently with and without a WG
> extension.  Ted and I brought up the need for these urgent decisions to W3C
> directors and requested a call with them to get their advice on the
> assumptions we should make about our timeline. This e-mail went out last
> night. It would be great if we got a definitive answer before the next
> meeting, but we don’t know if this will happen.
>
> In the meantime, at least sections 7-9 could be moved out into a working
> group note. I expect that the pre-requisite to doing this is to review the
> branch Holger has for the recent updates he made to simplify the spec and
> make a decision about merging it to the master. It sounds like a
> substantive change and removal of sections 7 - 9 is a major change as well,
> so I am guessing it would be counter productive to be maintaining these
> updates in parallel.
>

Until we get a confirmation about adding the rules stuff in the note, I
would only mark these sections as non-normative in the current document and
delay the creation of a separate document.
I think this has the exact same effect with no effort


>
> Irene
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT