- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:32:53 +1000
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53E41AB5.6070800@topquadrant.com>
On 8/8/2014 10:26, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > I see this as an editorial clarification. Any objections out there? > Objections against Peter's proposal to split the first deliverable into two? Yes, I would be against the proposed wording because it seems to create an unnecessary abstraction level that is better solved with a specific RDF vocabulary and executable semantics (e.g. SPARQL). In my own proposal, the first level is the generic mechanism to attach constraints to RDF graphs/classes and a meta-language to express constraint templates, and the second level is a specific library of frequently needed constraints. Both are specific RDF vocabularies with attached semantics. Maybe Peter wants to elaborate on what his first document would include. Holger > On Aug 8, 2014 1:14 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote on 08/06/2014 > >>>> 01:15:27 PM: > >>>> > >>>>> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> > >>>>> To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS > >>>>> Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org <mailto: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 > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote on 08/06/2014 > >>>>>> 10:09:04 AM: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> > >>>>>> > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org <mailto: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 00:34:30 UTC