RE: Moving forward

Arnaud,

 

I believe that there is sufficient consensus regarding sections 2 and 3 of
the charter as currently written and the changes being sought now are in
section 4 (deliverable definition). I also agree that discussions within the
framework of a WG are likely to be more productive than the way it's
happening now on the mailing list.



If the definition of deliverables (section 4) can be modified after the
group starts working, this may be a workable way of proceeding. However, if
the deliverables can't be modified after the group starts (which is what I
was told once before in the context of the Linked Data in Government WG),
than this is a bigger issue - I am not comfortable with deliverables as they
are without the ability to modify them.

 

Regards,

 

Irene

 

From: Arnaud Le Hors [mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:32 PM
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Subject: Moving forward

 

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>
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