My proposal to move us forward

I want to restate the idea/proposal I talked about at the end of the call. 
I know it isn't without challenges but I think there is a chance here of 
getting to something we could all live with. Short of that we will have to 
agree to disagree and fail to produce a common solution so, before we 
reject it, I'd like us to give it serious consideration. The idea is as 

1) Strengthen Holger's proposal based on Peter's solid foundation
2) Rebase the ShEx proposal as a user-friendly syntax layer on top of the 

Arguably 1) could be done by either fixing Holger's draft or turning 
Peter's proposal into a draft and adding what's missing such as templates. 
The latter might lead to something cleaner but the former seems a lower 
hanging fruit. We can discuss.

Doing 2) will certainly lead to identification of specific gaps. We can 
then discuss what to do about each gap: e.g., drop the feature or extend 
the base (possibly beyond what SPARQL alone can do).

We still have issues to resolve such as the entailment regime, the 
relationship between shapes and classes, whether SPARQL is the only 
extension mechanism, etc. But I don't see any of these as impossible to 

Let's not fight over which approach is better. Let's work together to make 
it work for us all. Yes, it does require willingness to compromise in some 
areas. But that's part of the standard process so if you're here I trust 
that you're ready for that.
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2015 00:15:06 UTC