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

Re: Moving forward

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 11:11:32 -0700
Message-ID: <53E26FD4.1070308@kcoyle.net>
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org

On 8/6/14, 10:09 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.

"... vocabulary for validation of specified graphs..."?
"... vocabulary for validation of defined and bounded RDF 
structures/graphs/triple sets..."?

I'm grasping at straws here, but surely there must be another way to say 
this that doesn't use the term "shapes", which seems to be imbued with 
some unpopular semantics.


> 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

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 18:12:06 UTC

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