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

Re: Moving forward

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 16:13:28 -0700
Message-ID: <53E40818.4090404@gmail.com>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Yes indeed.

peter


On 08/07/2014 01:08 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * 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
>>>>>   >
>>>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 23:13:59 UTC

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