Re: Moving forward with part 2 of the spec

Holger,
Is there any way we can resolve proposal 3 and 4? What specifically needs 
to be done to reach some workable conclusion? What is the path to get 
there?

If there is no agreement, then formally writing up both proposals in 
reviewable documents might be the only path forward.


Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575




From:   Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
To:     "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Date:   04/12/2016 01:08 AM
Subject:        Moving forward with part 2 of the spec



The second part of the spec (SPARQL extensions) has seriously fallen 
into neglect. It basically hasn't been updated since the metamodel 
simplification discussion started in October 2015. Half a year has 
passed, and although Proposal 3 has been created, none of the proposed 
improvements have been implemented in the spec yet, and the ongoing 
discussions related to Proposal 4 will likely block this for several 
more months to come. Meanwhile we are losing valuable time, the spec is 
in poor shape, and we cannot even ship the incremental improvements of 
Proposal 3. Many of these changes are low-risk syntactic changes such as 
renaming sh:Argument to sh:Parameter and renaming sh:Template to 
sh:ConstraintComponent.

Unless anyone considers the current design to be superior to Proposal 3, 
I believe there would be value in upgrading the second half of the spec 
to align with Proposal 3. Obviously some people may say that this is 
premature and may lead to duplicate work because the WG will decide to 
make further changes, yet having the current deadlock is not helping 
anyone either. I would even argue we should clean up the second part and 
publish another draft, to get external feedback on where we stand.

Thoughts?

Holger