general shacl question

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

unread,
Apr 3, 2020, 8:57:09 AM4/3/20
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com

 

Clients are asking me: what is the status of SHACL AF?

They see a work group note from summer 2017 and ask why isn’t it evolving in a proposed recommendation etc.

 

Is this related to potential other ideas like RIF recommendation that might be considered in this process?

 

Thx for any news on this,

Michel

 

Ps got also similar questions on your dash stuff (http://datashapes.org/constraints.html)

 

 

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel...@tno.nl

Location

 

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.

 

 

 

 

Irene Polikoff

unread,
Apr 3, 2020, 9:18:16 AM4/3/20
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com
Any W3C member can lobby W3C for starting a working group that will take something to recommendation level. In fact, you do not even need to be a member to provide evidence of the need, but only members can participate in a working group and member voting could block starting a working group. 
So this has to do with the amount of community interest and involvement.

If there is ever to be SHACL 2.0 working group, it is likely that it will take on the advanced features. Will there be one? Again, depends on the general needs of the community.
A working group process requires a lot of effort, commitment and investment. There must be companies that are willing and able to sustain it.

In the meantime, community group offers a lighter process and AF note was already updated through the community group vehicle.


On Apr 3, 2020, at 8:57 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 

Clients are asking me: what is the status of SHACL AF?

They see a work group note from summer 2017 and ask why isn’t it evolving in a proposed recommendation etc.

 

Is this related to potential other ideas like RIF recommendation that might be considered in this process?

 

Thx for any news on this,

Michel

 

Ps got also similar questions on your dash stuff (http://datashapes.org/constraints.html)

 

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel...@tno.nl

Location

 

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.

 

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/a7b683c6b6a14de786fa7da74ca110b1%40tno.nl.

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

unread,
Apr 3, 2020, 10:49:48 AM4/3/20
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com

All clear but then....

What do I tell my clients?

 

“Small change at this moment that SHACL AF will soon get more status”?

 

Or can I have a more positive message?

(guess you know the actions and intentions in the current community group)

 

Thx Michel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel...@tno.nl

Location

 

Irene Polikoff

unread,
Apr 3, 2020, 11:50:00 AM4/3/20
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com
I would tell clients the following:

It is nice to have standards, but the bottom line is “do you need the capabilities of SHACL AF”? If the answer is “Yes”, then use them. People use things that are non standard or de-facto standards all the time - if they are needed and important. And vice versa. There are de-jure standards that die because they were ill conceived and no one uses them. For example, GRDL (and RIF).

 It is also not (at all) a one way street. Quite on contrary. The more people use SHACL AF, the more likely it is that it will become a Recommendation. W3C is trying to avoid situations where a spec is taken to Recommendation status and then no one uses it. The current policy is to follow the use. If your customers want to see AF move from the Working Group Note status to Recommendation, the best way to ensure that this happens is to use them.

If the question is about RIF, it is a red herring. RIF was pretty much dead on arrival.


On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:49 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

All clear but then....
What do I tell my clients?
 
“Small change at this moment that SHACL AF will soon get more status”?
 
Or can I have a more positive message?
(guess you know the actions and intentions in the current community group)
 
Thx Michel
 
 
 
 
Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

unread,
Apr 3, 2020, 1:05:28 PM4/3/20
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com
Thx ...useful....

Op 3 apr. 2020 17:50 schreef Irene Polikoff <ir...@topquadrant.com>:

Holger Knublauch

unread,
Apr 4, 2020, 1:06:39 AM4/4/20
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com

Let me add that the current working draft of SHACL-AF is

https://w3c.github.io/shacl/shacl-af/

which in particular has the sh:values feature that many people find useful.

While I would love to see this with an official W3C approval stamp, getting there would take a lot of time. Making it a de-facto standard support by the SHACL Community Group would be a more feasible route. Turning this into an official spec would require convincing W3C that another inferencing standard is needed, and, if past experience is any guidance, this would lead to a situation where competing existing standards will try to veto this process, or completely different groups suddenly join with the goal of evolving this into something completely different, possibly not even based on SHACL. And no, sorry, it is unlikely that we would want to spend resources on such a thing. Two more years of endless discussions, no thanks. SHACL-AF solves enough business problems for us as is.

Holger

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

unread,
Apr 4, 2020, 11:48:55 AM4/4/20
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com
Thx Holger
Very clear.
Also thx for the link to the updated spec on github.
Could this one also be on w3c ?
Or is it now already seperate from w3c because of the discussions you mentioned?

Gr michel


Op 4 apr. 2020 07:06 schreef Holger Knublauch <hol...@topquadrant.com>:

Holger Knublauch

unread,
Apr 4, 2020, 8:08:47 PM4/4/20
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com


On 5/04/2020 01:48, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users wrote:
Thx Holger
Very clear.
Also thx for the link to the updated spec on github.
Could this one also be on w3c ?

It already is, see the URL. This is how drafts of W3C Community Group Notes are distributed.

Holger


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages