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

Re: blank slate

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:28:14 +1000
Message-ID: <53DED39E.80606@topquadrant.com>
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
As I said before I am fine with adding another compact syntax, and 
believe this is something that can be added on top of any of the 
proposed data models to represent constraints in RDF. My problems with 
the charter as currently written are

- it sounds like the human-readable syntax would be the starting point, 
but in reality it is just one dimension among others. I believe an RDF 
representation is a more practical starting point, and any number of 
abbreviated syntaxes can be added on top of that, as a separate 
deliverable. This is not about importance of each, but about sensible 
stacking of the technologies.

- it is quite possible that the RDF representation is user-friendly 
enough, if you consider that Turtle is now a W3C standard, and JSON-LD 
opens this up to a very large community that is currently not familiar 
with semantic web technology.

- I am concerned that having too many syntaxes may lead to a division of 
the community, and adds to the implementation costs for platform developers.

That's why I would make the compact syntax an optional deliverable if 
the WG feels that the none of the RDF serializations are good enough.

Holger


On 8/4/2014 1:29, Paul wrote:
> Karen,
>
> I second this.
> I must say that I do not have good experiences with some of the technical solutions proposed in this discussion in a government linked data context (multiple projects, multiple countries).
> I'm looking also for something more user centered for this target group.
>
>
> Paul
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Hermans
> ProXML
> (t) +32 15 23 00 76
> (m) paul@proxml.be
> (w) www.proxml.be
>
>
>> On 3-aug.-2014, at 17:19, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, the "compact, human readable syntax" is what I am most interested in. It may need to be built on top of what the group develops, but without it, the community I am most interested in will not be able to participate, as we will have few members with the technical skills to express constraints in something resembling, for example, a complex SPARQL query.
>>
>> I posted a reply to this thread that no one has replied to, so it is sitting there sadly orphaned. Briefly, what I do not see anywhere in this conversation any mention of WHO is the target of this "deliverable". There is a great deal of discussion of the technology but almost none of the real world in which it will operate, and zero discussion of the target skill set of the intended implementers. As so often seems to happen in standards work, the skill set of the members of the standards group is assumed as the target skill set of all users. Those of us with a less technical background but a true need for a solution are seen as "non-representative" because we don't fit well into the group. The group is self-selected and quite possibly has a rather rarefied set of skills compared the vast majority of potential users of the deliverable, but that does not mean that the target audience should be the few members of the group.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 8/2/14, 9:58 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
>>> 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"
>>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto: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  $Id: charter.html,v
>>>> 1.45
>>>>> 2014-07-22 18:29:34 sandro Exp $
>> -- 
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 00:29:48 UTC

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