RE: SHACL Compact Syntax, was Re: Fwd: Transition Request: 3 FPWGNOTE documents

I am getting a bit lost in this thread. There seemed to be general agreement that the compact syntax is a valuable thing for some. There seemed to be general agreement that, by and large, the compact syntax covered the primary territory. Now there seems to be general agreement that a note isn’t a formal document and that the note need not represent a completely-baked concept.

So can someone explain what the issue is? I’d like to be better informed before tomorrow. Thank you very much.

Regards,
Jack Hodges, Ph.D.

Siemens Corporation
CT RDA NEC WOS-US
1936 University, Suite 320
Berkeley, CA 94704-1074, USA

Mobil: +1 510 289-2982
mailto:jack.hodges@siemens.com

From: Irene Polikoff [mailto:irene@topquadrant.com]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 4:54 PM
To: Dimitris Kontokostas
Cc: Holger Knublauch; public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SHACL Compact Syntax, was Re: Fwd: Transition Request: 3 FPWGNOTE documents


On May 29, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de<mailto:kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>> wrote:


Anyway, the WG produced another note that went through more review, is more mature and there was no comment on that.

No comment from whom? And why would this point be relevant here? Notes are not on the standardization track and different notes may be at different levels of factual or perceived completeness and maturity. This, I think, would be a function of how far the work has progressed at the time the WG stopped it.


Imo, this one is not in such a good shape.

Sando or W3m could probably tell what are the requirements for a W3C note and if this spec qualifies for that, or if a member submission or a followup CG report would be a better option

It is my understanding that “A Working Group Note or Interest Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group or Interest Group to provide a stable reference for a useful document that is not intended to be a formal standard, or to document work that was abandoned without producing a Recommendation."

As far as I can tell, there is no required maturity qualifications for a note. It is a publication of a useful work that has been done by a WG. And creating such publication is the expected step - as indicated by the “should” below:

"Some, but not all, Working Drafts are meant to advance to Recommendation. Any Working Draft not, or no longer, intended to advance to Recommendation should be published as a Working Group Note. Working Drafts do not necessarily represent a consensus of the Working Group, and do not imply any endorsement by W3C or its members beyond agreement to work on a general area of technology."

I am quoting from https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/


By all criteria, this should be published as the working group note, unless I am completely misreading the process description.




Best regards,
Dimitris