W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Moving forward with part 2 of the spec

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:28:08 -0700
Message-Id: <201604122128.u3CLSPi5031761@d01av02.pok.ibm.com>
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:31 UTC