- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:33:09 -0700
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
ditto, of course peter On 08/12/2014 06:18 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > +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. >> >
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 01:33:39 UTC