Re: Moving forward with part 2 of the spec

On 12/04/2016 23:44, Jim Amsden wrote:
> 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?

Proposal 4 was presented as a complete replacement of the existing spec. 
I have enumerated IMHO serious problems with this proposal, e.g. here

which makes this wholesale replacement a no-go for me. Instead I have 
tried to extract the major differences into separate ISSUEs, so that the 
WG can examine the essential differences one by one. I believe this 
would allow us to continue incrementally, "harvesting" suitable ideas 
from P4 into the current design. However, only some of these issues have 
been discussed so far, and some email threads seem to have abruptly 
stalled with unresponded emails and no conclusion. Neither has there 
been enough meeting time to get a feeling for what the other WG members 


> 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 <>
> To: "" <>
> 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

Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 23:30:46 UTC