Re: My proposal to move us forward

Sorry I didn't have the opportunity to react earlier.

Sorry I cannot participate to the discussion, still let me share some thoughts.

If the features currently present in the ShEx syntax are to be added to Holger's
proposal, how can one hope that their semantics would be simpler than the current
ShEx semantics ? I have serious doubts that the same complex concepts would appear
significantly simpler if defined in SPARQL, or in any other formalism.

Incrementally adding new features to the semantics of the language: that's
what I've been doing for the last month.

This proposition sounds to me like: let's take the time to re-define the
semantics from scratch, instead of taking the time to understand what is already
there, and adapt it if needed.

Best regards,

Le 20/05/2015 02:14, Arnaud Le Hors a écrit :
> 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

Iovka Boneva
Associate professor (MdC) Université de Lille
+33 6 95 75 70 25

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2015 14:23:31 UTC