Re: My proposal to move us forward

Arnaud,

+1.

I'd add
3) Write up the semantics in a separate spec. Address issues such as
the meaning of recursion.

-- Arthur

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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 follows:
>
> 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
> above
>
> 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
> solve.
>
> 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 12:38:20 UTC