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

Re: Moving forward

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 16:08:07 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-ID: <20140807200805.GD23419@w3.org>
* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2014-08-06 14:23-0700]
> My proposal from a little while ago was to call out the definition
> of shapes and require the WG to produce this.   My wording was as
> follows (I just put the pointer to Resource Shapes back in to make
> it look more like the current draft deliverables):
> 
> 1. A syntax and semantics for shapes specifying how to construct shape
> expressions and how shape expressions are evaluated against RDF graphs.
> 
> 2. An RDF vocabulary [such as Resource Shapes] for expressing these
> shapes in RDF triples, so they can
> be stored, queried, analyzed, and manipulated with normal RDF tools.

I'm guessing that this is a call to replace the first item in the
Deliverables:
[[
An RDF vocabulary, such as Resource Shapes 2.0, for expressing these
shapes in RDF triples, so they can be stored, queried, analyzed, and
manipulated with normal RDF tools.
]] — http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter#deliverables

Can you confirm?


> peter
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/06/2014 02:02 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> >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
> > > >  >
> > >
> 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 20:08:11 UTC

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