Re: Enough already

In these mailing lists and during the discussions, voices "against" 
something are much more likely than positive voices. Even if there are a 
couple of people agreeing with the issues that someone raises, this 
doesn't mean that the silent majority of users find these issues 
relevant. We can spend another couple of years word-smithing and 
cleaning up corner cases, but at some stage we need to terminate. Every 
spec has flaws, esp in its first version.

Holger


On 13/12/2016 4:50, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> For what it's worth I ought to say that claiming that "There is a very 
> vocal minority (of one) holding this debate hostage" is from my point 
> of view a mischaracterization.
>
> If Peter was the only one to raise issues and those were considered 
> minor by the WG it would hardly represent a hurdle. The reality is 
> that most of Peter's issues resonate with some WG members and 
> resolving them is more often anything but easy.
>
> As Karen pointed out we're interested in implementation feedback. Are 
> you implementing SHACL in your product? Can you please tell us more? 
> How much do you support: Core, Full (Core+SPARQL)?
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web & Blockchain 
> Technologies - IBM Cloud
>
>
> Terry Roach <troach@capsi.com.au> wrote on 12/10/2016 05:22:51 AM:
>
> > From: Terry Roach <troach@capsi.com.au>
> > To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
> > Date: 12/10/2016 05:26 AM
> > Subject: Enough already
> >
> > If I may interject in this debate, this all seems quite bewildering 
> to me.
> >
> > I am a pragmatic, practitioner of semantic technologies;  is a mere
> > consumer of W3C standards. Our company builds products based on your
> > ideas and so maybe I am not accustomed to how these things get
> > cooked up, but take a look at yourselves please. Somebody needs to
> > inject a dose of reality into this conversation.
> >
> > We are very interested in the SHACL standard making it’s way through
> > this process and becoming endorsed so that we can commit to it in
> > our products. There will be no better test of the value and
> > robustness of SHACL than the community of semantic developers
> > applying it in practice.
> >
> > No standard is born perfect, of course it will evolve and I expect
> > we will find issues that will surely be addressed as it matures. But
> > it needs to get out of the door.
> >
> > Perfection is the enemy of innovation here.
> >
> > If there are any substantive issues with the standard, then of
> > course robust debate is great, but that should be in the form of a
> > positive, constructive suggestions. I am just seeing myopic,
> > pedantic grandstanding here.
> >
> > There is a very vocal minority (of one) holding this debate hostage
> > and it is a travesty that the enormous effort that has gone into
> > this piece of work is being held up in this way.
> >
> > Enough already
> >
> > Terry Roach
> > Chief Executive Officer
> >
> > [image removed]
> >
> > Suite 105, International Business Centre, Australia Technology Park
> > 2 Cornwallis St.
> > Eveleigh NSW 2015, Australia
> >
> > M:  +61 421 054 804
> > troach@capsi.com.au
> > www.capsi.com.au
> >
> >
>