Re: Moving forward

I can't support the current deliverables, at least as I understand them.

The first deliverable indicates that the working group is supposed to be 
producing an RDF vocabulary for shapes without defining what shapes are or how 
they are to be used.  Either that or the first deliverable is simply an RDF 
vocabulary for some existing definition of shapes, which seems even stranger.

The second deliverable uses considerably different language, as if the two 
products cover quite different situations.   This does not sound like a good 
idea to me.

There is no recommendation track deliverable for the meaning of 
shapes/constraints/validation.


The current draft charter is also tilted away from the kind of RDF validation 
that is done with respect to RDFS classes, particularly in the scope section. 
  This is particularly strange as there has been quite a bit of discussion as 
to how class-based validation relates to shapes.  I would have expected the 
scope to have been widened to cover the goals of class-based validation of RDF 
graphs.  I also don't see what RDF shapes have to say to the description of 
query interfaces.


I do not think that the charter is ready.


peter






On 08/06/2014 09:31 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As chair-to-be of the proposed WG I've been working with the W3C Team on
> trying to find a way forward that would be acceptable by all.
>
> The normative change proposed to the charter [draft charter] which was to
> start with use cases and requirements instead of assuming Resource Shapes as a
> starting point was made weeks ago. The Team has actually made the charter
> technology neutral with regard to all of the various candidates out there and
> has now made the compact human-readable syntax an optional deliverable and
> added a reference to Dublin Core Application Profiles. I haven't seen any
> other proposal that seems to have general support.
>
> [draft charter] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter
>
> So at this point, I think we're better off going with the proposed charter,
> launch the WG, and direct our efforts towards writing up the use cases,
> requirements, and exploring what the best solution might be objectively.
>
> There is definitely a risk that the WG will struggle to find a direction with
> such an open ended charter but at the same time I think it will be more
> productive to have a discussion within the framework of a WG than the way it's
> happening now on this mailing list.
>
> I can say that I've worked with Arthur Ryman so that IBM would support this
> even though this isn't what he wanted (FYI Arthur and I are from different
> groups within IBM). Standards are made of compromises, so I hope you will all
> do the same.
>
> I look forward to working with you all.
> Thank you.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM
> Software Group

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 17:09:35 UTC