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

Re: Moving forward

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:32:53 +1000
Message-ID: <53E41AB5.6070800@topquadrant.com>
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
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

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