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

Re: summarizing proposed changes to charter

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:18:07 -0700
Message-ID: <53EABCCF.3030002@kcoyle.net>
To: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
+1 for all of Eric's suggestions, and let's get this group started, 
already! - kc

On 8/12/14, 5:55 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> Hi all, we can have a face-to-face at the W3C Technical Plenary in
> November if we can quickly endorse a good-enough charter.  As it
> stands now, it isn't clear that the group will be able to reach
> consensus within the Working Group, let alone get through the member
> review without objection.
>
> Please review the proposals that I've culled from the list.  I
> encournage compromise on all our parts and we'll have to suppress the
> desire to wordsmith. (Given the 3-month evaluation period,
> wordsmithing won't change much anyways.)
>
>
> separate semantics:
>
>    "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> - Message-ID: <53E2AFBD.9050102@gmail.com>
>      A syntax and semantics for shapes specifying how to construct shape expressions and how shape expressions are evaluated against RDF graphs.
>    "Dam, Jesse van" <jesse.vandam@wur.nl> - Message-ID: <63CF398D7F09744BA51193F17F5252AB1FD60B24@SCOMP0936.wurnet.nl>
>      defining the the (direct) semantics meaning of shapes and defining the associated validation process.
>
>    opposition: Holger Knublauch
>
>    proposed resolution: include, noting that if SPARQL is judged to be useful for the semantics, there's nothing preventing us from using it.
>
>
> make graph normalization optional or use-case specific:
>
>    "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> - Message-ID: <53E2AFBD.9050102@gmail.com>
>      3 OPTIONAL A specification of how shape verification interacts with inference.
>    Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com> - Message-Id: <D954B744-05CD-4E5C-8FC2-C08A9A99BA9F@syapse.com>
>      the WG will consider whether it is necessary, practical or desireable to normalize a graph...
>      A graph normalization method, suitable for  the use cases determined by the group....
>    David Booth <david@dbooth.org> - Message-ID: <53E28D07.9000804@dbooth.org>
>      OPTIONAL - A Recommendation for normalization/canonicalization of RDF graphs and RDF datasets that are serialized in N-Triples and N-Quads. opposition - don't do it at all:
>    "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> - Message-ID: <53E3A4CB.4040200@gmail.com>
>      the WG should not be working on this.
>
>    proposed resolution: withdrawn, to go to new light-weight, focused WG, removing this text:
>    [[
>    The WG MAY produce a Recommendation for graph normalization.
>    ]]
>
>
> mandatory human-facing language:
>
>    "Dam, Jesse van" <jesse.vandam@wur.nl> - Message-ID: <63CF398D7F09744BA51193F17F5252AB1FD60B24@SCOMP0936.wurnet.nl>
>      ShExC mandatory, but potentially as a Note.
>    David Booth <david@dbooth.org> - Message-ID: <53E28D07.9000804@dbooth.org>
>      In Section 4 (Deliverables), change "OPTIONAL - Compact, human-readable syntax" to "Compact, human-readable syntax", i.e., make it required.
>    Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com> - Message-Id: <54AA894F-F4B4-4877-8806-EB85FB5A42E5@syapse.com>
>
>    opposition - make it OPTIONAL
>    "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> - Message-ID: <53E2AFBD.9050102@gmail.com>
>      OPTIONAL A compact, human-readable syntax for expressing shapes.
>
>    proposed resolution: keep as OPTIONAL, not mentioning ShExC, but clarifying that it's different from the RDF syntax.
>
>
> report formats:
>    Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
>      provide flexible validation execution plans that range from:
>        Success / fail
>        Success / fail per constraint
>        Fails with error counts
>        Individual resources that fail per constraint
>        And enriched failed resources with annotations
>
>    proposed resolution: no change, noting that no one seconded this proposal.
>
>
> test suite/validator:
>
>    Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
>      Validation results are very important for the progress of this WG and should be a standalone deliverable.
>    David Booth <david@dbooth.org> - Message-ID: <53E28D07.9000804@dbooth.org>
>      Test Suite, to help ensure interoperability and correct implementation. The group will chose the location of this deliverable, such as a git repository.
>
>    proposed resolution: leave from charter as WGs usually choose to do this anyways and it has no impact on IP commitments.
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 01:18:38 UTC

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