- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:28:08 -0700
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <201604122128.u3CLSPi5031761@d01av02.pok.ibm.com>
I was actually thinking along the same lines as Holger. I think if we can agree that this would be an improvement from the status quo anyway - independently of what one might think of Proposal 4 - we could make that move. All it means is that this would then constitute the new reference against which Proposal 4 is evaluated. While it may seem to be a waste of time I think working on those in parallel is better. That way we don't stay with a spec in limbo. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM Cloud From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org> Date: 04/11/2016 10:08 PM 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
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:28:57 UTC