BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Sabre//Sabre VObject 4.5.8//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
LAST-MODIFIED:20230919T113006Z
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Madrid
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20221030T010000
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20231029T010000
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20230326T010000
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:b8617206-4c2b-4355-80da-fcf4eb628d1a
DTSTAMP:20230919T113006Z
SUMMARY:"You say Schemata\, I say Schemas"
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Madrid:20230913T171500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Madrid:20230913T181500
DESCRIPTION:https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/b8617206-4c2b-4355-80da-fcf4
 eb628d1a/\n\nA large variety of schema languages exist\, defined inside or
  outside of W3C\; to name a few: [RDF-Schema]\, [OWL]\, [SHACL]\, [ShEx]\,
  [XML-Schema]\, [JSON-Schema]... Each of these languages have been favored
  by different categories of users\, who in turn ignore\, neglect\, sometim
 es even despise the other languages\, deemed "too complicated"\, "less pow
 erful" or simply "not fit for purpose".\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIt might be temptin
 g to consider that any schema language is worth any other\, and that the "
 best" one is a matter of technological preferences. We argue on the contra
 ry that these languages differ in their core purpose\, and should be seen 
 as complementary rather than competitors. More precisely:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n*
  ontology languages such as [RDF-Schema] and [OWL] focus on the **conceptu
 al modelling** of the domain\,\n\n\n\n* shape languages such as [SHACL] an
 d [ShEx] focus on the **logical modelling** of the data\,\n\n\n\n* structu
 ral schema languages such as [XML-Schema] and [JSON-Schema] focus of the *
 *physical modelling** of exchange formats.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSticking to one 
 schema language to cover all these aspects is therefore suboptimal. Creati
 ng bridges between their user communities\, to allow cross-fertilization a
 nd combined use\, is a promising approach.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBut it is also c
 hallenging\, because it creates the need to maintain consistency across sc
 hemas at different levels. We will present different tools and methods tha
 t have been proposed to deal with this problem\, and discuss the standardi
 zation opportunities in this area.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[RDF-Schema]: https://ww
 w.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/\n\n\n\n[OWL]: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/\n
 \n\n\n[SHACL]: https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/\n\n\n\n[ShEx]: http://shex.io/
 shex-primer/index.html\n\n\n\n[XML-Schema]: https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschem
 a-1/\n\n\n\n[JSON-Schema]: https://json-schema.org/specification.html\n\nA
 genda\n\n**Chairs:**\nPierre-Antoine Champin\, Ege Korkan\n\n**Description
 :**\nA large variety of schema languages exist\, defined inside or outside
  of W3C\; to name a few: [RDF-Schema]\, [OWL]\, [SHACL]\, [ShEx]\, [XML-Sc
 hema]\, [JSON-Schema]... Each of these languages have been favored by diff
 erent categories of users\, who in turn ignore\, neglect\, sometimes even 
 despise the other languages\, deemed "too complicated"\, "less powerful" o
 r simply "not fit for purpose".\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIt might be tempting to con
 sider that any schema language is worth any other\, and that the "best" on
 e is a matter of technological preferences. We argue on the contrary that 
 these languages differ in their core purpose\, and should be seen as compl
 ementary rather than competitors. More precisely:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n* ontolog
 y languages such as [RDF-Schema] and [OWL] focus on the **conceptual model
 ling** of the domain\,\n\n\n\n* shape languages such as [SHACL] and [ShEx]
  focus on the **logical modelling** of the data\,\n\n\n\n* structural sche
 ma languages such as [XML-Schema] and [JSON-Schema] focus of the **physica
 l modelling** of exchange formats.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSticking to one schema l
 anguage to cover all these aspects is therefore suboptimal. Creating bridg
 es between their user communities\, to allow cross-fertilization and combi
 ned use\, is a promising approach.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBut it is also challengi
 ng\, because it creates the need to maintain consistency across schemas at
  different levels. We will present different tools and methods that have b
 een proposed to deal with this problem\, and discuss the standardization o
 pportunities in this area.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[RDF-Schema]: https://www.w3.org
 /TR/rdf-schema/\n\n\n\n[OWL]: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/\n\n\n\n[S
 HACL]: https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/\n\n\n\n[ShEx]: http://shex.io/shex-pri
 mer/index.html\n\n\n\n[XML-Schema]: https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/\n\n
 \n\n[JSON-Schema]: https://json-schema.org/specification.html\n\n**Goal(s)
 :**\nWe will discuss the complementarity of various schema languages\, and
  which tools are available (or missing...) to make them work together.\n\n
 \n**Materials:**\n- [slides](https://champin.net/2023/TPAC-Schemata)\n- [m
 inutes](https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-schemata-minutes.html)\n- [Session p
 roposal on GitHub](https://github.com/w3c/tpac2023-breakouts/issues/8)
STATUS:CONFIRMED
CREATED:20230905T053553Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230919T113006Z
SEQUENCE:1
ORGANIZER;CN=W3C Calendar;PARTSTAT=ACCEPTED;ROLE=NON-PARTICIPANT:mailto:nor
 eply@w3.org
LOCATION:Giralda V - Level -2
CATEGORIES:TPAC 2023,Breakout Sessions
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR