- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:02:28 -0700
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF1DB5A947.B53D04DD-ON88257D2C.00716518-88257D2C.00739357@us.ibm.com>
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear and sounded like I was complaining. We're running out of time to get a WG launched in time to have a first face to face meeting at TPAC. Although such a f2f isn't a must -have, we (the Team and I) thought this would be a good opportunity to get the WG truly going. From that point of view, we would rather not change the charter any further. But if anyone made a concrete proposal on how to change the charter that would seem to gain general support rather than getting immediate push back from others on the list I would expect the Team to accommodate. That's why I said that the most productive thing to do is to propose specific changes. This remark wasn't directed to you in particular but to everyone on the list. I hope this is clearer. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM Software Group "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 08/06/2014 01:15:27 PM: > From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > Date: 08/06/2014 01:15 PM > Subject: Re: Moving forward > > You said that we should use the current charter to start the WG. I said that > I thought that the current charter is not suitable to start the WG, and why I > thought so. You are now complaining that I should have produced a proposal > for change. However, according to you change was not an option. So are you > now saying that there is again the possibility of change to the charter? > > peter > > > On 08/06/2014 11:52 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > There is only so much that can be conveyed in a list of deliverables that is > > meant to be concise. The list doesn't stand on its own though. The previous > > sections of the charter give additional information about what is meant in > > that list. For instance, I think the following list of issues to > be addressed > > in section 1 makes it clear that the first deliverable isn't just about > > defining a vocabulary without defining what shapes are, how they are to be > > used, and what they mean. > > > > * Defining and publishing a description of the intended topologyand value > > constraints of a nodes in a RDF graph, henceforth a "shape". > > * Verification of data integrity with respect to a shape. > > * Human and machine interpretation of shapes to develop or optimize SPARQL > > queries and develop user interfaces. > > > > > > There has already been plenty of discussion on this list and > unfortunately not > > much convergence. The only pratical way forward I see is for > everyone to focus > > on the exact wording of the charter and to propose specific > changes. Just like > > we would do when developing a spec. That's what I told Arthur a > few days ago, > > and he did. His proposal was rejected but I think that's the only > concrete way > > to make progress. General statements of opinion aren't very helpful. > > > > Of course, we all come from different backgrounds and we still need to check > > that we read the charter the same way but we should try and not let that > > distract us from the goal at hand: editing the charter so that > it's acceptable > > for all. > > > > Regards. > > > > -- > > Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM > > Software Group > > > > > > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 08/06/2014 > > 10:09:04 AM: > > > > > From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> > > > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > > > Date: 08/06/2014 10:09 AM > > > Subject: 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, asif 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 > scopesection. > > > 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 21:02:57 UTC