- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:58:21 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Well right now I don't see any requirement that the WG provides a firm definition of how shapes work, nor just what is a shape. I was proposing to close this hole. There is nothing in my proposal against having the syntax be particular kinds of RDF graphs, nor having the semantics be a mapping into SPARQL (or OWL CWA, or even Z), as long as there is a firm definition of what is going on. peter On 08/07/2014 05:32 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > 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 00:58:52 UTC