Re: Proposed change to the charter

On 8/12/14, 7:30 PM, Dam, Jesse van wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I see that there has been a lot of discussion in the last 2 weeks as I have been away on holidays.
> In general I do agree with the new/extra ideas and disagree with discussion points deeming something not being use full.
>
> It is clear

It would help if you could clarify why you believe this is "clear". I 
take the opposite view point. To me it's "clear" that SPIN ticks most 
requirement boxes already, so I'd be interested to hear limitations that 
people have found. Have you used it and which problems do you see?

> there is a need for something new that is not yet captured by SPARQL, SPIN, OWL/ICV and OSLC Resource Shapes, however I do agree we should be not be duplicating thing and make use of and align with these technologies where possible.
>
> I did read the current charter and I do agree with its content and like the fact that all solutions (including SPARQL/SPIN, OWL closed world, Regular Expression derivatives and others) are going to be considered and researched. As it is not possible to make a decision at this moment.
>
> However to my opinion we miss a deliverable recommandation (a similar one is present in the OWL 2 definition):
> Algebraic logic: defining the the (direct) semantics meaning of shapes and defining the associated validation process. These logics can be reusing the logics defined in SPARQL and OWL (closed world), but can contain novel logics if deemed needed.

I sincerely hope that this WG does not fall into the same trap that 
other W3C standards have fallen, by being too abstract and based on more 
theory than practice. I don't see a need for another "logic" if a SPARQL 
syntax is provided. This is a formal specification, SPARQL already has a 
well-defined mapping to an algebra etc. I would find is especially 
alarming if the "logic" would result in things that cannot be expressed 
with state-of-the-art technology (i.e. SPARQL) that is already supported 
by all triple stores.

Anyway, it's time to start the WG and have regular meetings to talk such 
things through. Who is driving this process right now?

Holger

>
> In relation to the SHEXc deliverable, do I have a preference to make it mandatory as deliverable, but make its recommendation optional.(like as it is for manchester syntax for OWL)
>
> Regards,
> Jesse van Dam
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 22:42:52 UTC