W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > April 2015

Re: ShEx questionnaire (was Re: RDF validation questionnaire)

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:10:36 -0400
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
CC: <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D15555E5.30D1C%irene@topquadrant.com>
Arnaud,

If the intent of the questionnaire was to get input from the broader
community on the importance of the RDF validation requirements/features
explained in the questionnaire, I believe it could be written in a way that
is not (only) ShEx specific.

If the intent of the questionnaire was something else, Id like to
understand what it was.

Irene 

From:  Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date:  Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 3:33 PM
To:  Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Cc:  <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: ShEx questionnaire (was Re: RDF validation questionnaire)
Resent-From:  <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 15 Apr 2015 19:35:35 +0000

> the working group would get the most value if the questionnaire was
> expressed in terms of SHACL.

I'm afraid the current situation makes this impossible given that as Peter
pointed out the WG has yet to adopt any proposal and SHACL is therefore
currently undefined.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM
Software Group


Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote on 04/15/2015 12:06:04 PM:

> From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
> To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
> Date: 04/15/2015 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: ShEx questionnaire (was Re: RDF validation questionnaire)
> 
> That is true, but since Eric is the W3C Lead for the SHACL/RDF Shapes
> Working Group and the first public drafts for SHACL start to become
> available and the e-mail mentions the RDF Shapes Working Group, it is easy
> for the recipients to become confused.
> 
> There is a timing dimension to this. Six months ago such questionnaire
> would make sense in helping to inform the group and it could even be done
> for all member submissions that served as input to SHACL, but right now
> the working group would get the most value if the questionnaire was
> expressed in terms of SHACL.
> 
> 
> Irene 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/15/15, 2:45 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 
> >I read Eric's mail as not being about SHACL at all, but about work being
> >done elsewhere that members of this group might inform. His note was
> >also posted to the DCMI list that is discussing application profiles,
> >which overlaps with this W3C group but is not the same. A questionnaire
> >for SHACL has not be proposed, AFAIK.
> >
> >kc
> >
> >On 4/15/15 11:30 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> I am rather disappointed that the questionnaire is so tied to ShEx,
> >> particularly considering the subject of the email that went out.
> >>
> >> As far as I am concerned the only information that the working group
> >>will be
> >> able to take away from the questionnaire is what people think should be
> >> included in ShEx.  This may have very little to do with what should be
> >> included in SHACL.
> >>
> >> peter
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 04/15/2015 10:09 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >>> In some Mayo grant work, I have prepared a questionnaire on the
> >>> expressivity of shape expressions. It presents a high-level language
> >>>for
> >>> expressing RDF constraints, explains a number of the technical points,
> >>> and asks the user for which features and technical approaches are
> >>> important to their work and their view of what will make the language
> >>> successful. There are a couple places where you can click for extra
> >>> geekiness, in case the baseline geekiness was insufficient.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like people to fill out the form imagining their immediate uses for
> >>> RDF validation as well as those that may come with new markets enabled
> >>>by
> >>> the existence of such RDF validating tooling. The form will record your
> >>> results whenever you hit submit so you can easily revisit your answers
> >>> after reflection.
> >>>
> >>> This work is supported in part by a NIH U01 grant  caCDE-QA
> >>> (1U01CA180940-01A1).
> >>>
> >>> On the top of my game here... here's the link:
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2015/ShExpressivity
<http://www.w3.org/2015/ShExpressivity>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: GnuPG v2
> >>
> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVLq4oAAoJECjN6+QThfjzAuIH/3p+ldIXpinn5b8jLT1AJCsx
> >> pqje/nO3bF1YCf9klM4FSlqs6XWexomK+dbyr8DbMORm7u3ez/Z+g1xr07eWRu6U
> >> X1GIATSBhASgKjG2fxtc3QYURFi3qw32CyiHe0QmfM9XcoCn9BZnKlClwPOZoimk
> >> 7qER0R6AbH+d6aFbvLPYOlOS2w+vtPBA9lpJPjzTby2rR/V+Oz015xag59j9+JDu
> >> R/XGVdW9CTG0MZXMIT7ys2LKFjl5nj/F2f55+ZUn9bh5jFbyvb2Lmba2EmbzTjp5
> >> b0ovPTcMemAr1jVXLV+REpGkyMUWp0iFugwi4i446XaI7r6A4Xa6XsO4ucJVVP8=
> >> =lQNY
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>
> >>
> >
> >-- 
> >Karen Coyle
> >kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net <http://kcoyle.net/>
> >m: 1-510-435-8234
> >skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 16:11:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:41 UTC