Re: summarizing proposed changes to charter

+1 for all except one item.

I'd like to make one last ditch attempt to include graph normalization 
as an OPTIONAL deliverable.  I expect the WG to treat it as low 
priority, and would only anticipate a normalization document being 
produced if someone takes the personal initiative to draft it.  I do not 
see any significant harm in including it in the charter on that basis, 
but I do see a benefit, because if the WG did somehow get to it then it 
would damn nice to have, so that we could finally validate RDF data by 
having a standard way to compare two RDF documents for equality, like we 
can routinely do with every other data representation.

Peter, would that be okay with you, to include graph normalization as 
OPTIONAL that way?

Thanks,
David

On 08/12/2014 08:55 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 01:55:47 UTC