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 20:26:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CANfjZH1PPp8M32WYwziZk0G+wLbUx8xmETPbGjXDkUYYtVnaNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org, Arnaud <lehors@us.ibm.com>
I see this as an editorial clarification. Any objections out there?

On Aug 8, 2014 1:14 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> 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 Friday, 8 August 2014 00:27:23 UTC

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