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

Re: summarizing proposed changes to charter

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:00:05 -0700
Message-ID: <53EAC6A5.4000209@gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
CC: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
I'm still not exactly sure just what normalization means in this context or 
what relationship it has to RDF validation.

peter


On 08/12/2014 06:55 PM, David Booth wrote:
> +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 02:00:36 UTC

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