Re: Moving forward

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
> >  >
>