W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > August 2014

RE: blank slate

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 00:58:48 -0400
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "'Arthur Ryman'" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <155201cfaed7$9d55c7c0$d8015740$@topquadrant.com>
Sandro,

 

It seems that even if the deliverables are to start with a "blank slate" (which I think would be unfortunate), some changes would still be needed to the list of deliverables such as deemphasizing  the "compact, human readable syntax" which is currently positioned as the primary focus of the work.

 

Irene

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] 
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 12:10 AM
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Irene Polikoff; 'Arthur Ryman'; public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Subject: Re: blank slate

 

On August 2, 2014 8:21:36 PM EDT, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" < <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

>Each charter draft I have seen points at one or more systems as a 

>potential

>starting point for the working group.   The initial ones had ShEx a the

> 

>starting point (at least as far as I can remember - I don't know how to 

>look at old drafts).  The last paragraph of Section 3 in recent drafts 

>directs the working group to look at several systems as a starting 

>point.  I view this as putting some marks on the slate.

> 

>However, for you mean a non-blank slate means that the working group's 

>solution should start out with a particular thing.  Yes, the last 

>paragraph of Section 3 doesn't mandate any solution and leaves this 

>slate blank.

> 

 

Yeah, normative vs non-normative.  The older drafts (which sadly are not automatically available - I can pull them out of cvs if it's important) named where the group would start.   From there the group could change things, but it had to start with that.

 

After discussion on this list it became clear there was no consensus on that, so we changed the charter so there is no design to use as a starting point, and instead the group will have to come up with one.  More work, but that's the reality, it seems.

 

I just hope the excitement around the charter turns into people willing to do the work.

 

    - Sandro

 

 

>peter

> 

> 

>On 08/02/2014 04:57 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> On 08/02/2014 06:11 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>>> No charter draft that I have seen does start with a blank sheet, so

>this is

>>> somewhat of a moot point.

>> 

>> Can you clarify this?

>> 

>> I understand the "blank sheet" term to be about the idea that a WG

>can either

>> start with a "default" (or "starting point"), from which it can

>decide to

>> deviate, or from a "blank sheet", in which case a decision is needed

>to

>> produce anything.

>> 

>> It was certainly my intent in drafting the last paragraph of the

>scope section

>> in the current version to be describing a blank sheet.   Do you read

>it (or

>> some other part of the charter) to be saying the WG has to start from

>some

>> chosen technology as the default?

>> 

>>       - Sandro

>> 

>> [1]   <http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter  $Id: charter.html,v

>1.45

>> 2014-07-22 18:29:34 sandro Exp $

 

 
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2014 04:59:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:40 UTC