- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:24:00 -0500
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
When I asked this question, Dimitris responded that may be sh:property would be kept, in which case the syntax would be similar. But, may be not. As I understand it, he has not yet decided or worked out all the details of the proposal. This in itself is an issue. The change to the metamodel has deep impacts and would cause a significant re-write to the spec. And, of course, all the aspects of it would need to be thought through and decided on. Going through this processes would cause creation of more issues to discuss and resolve. Looking at it purely from the process and timing perspective, I feel this move to be imprudent. The current metamodel has pros and cons - just like any design decision. There could be alternative metamodels with their own, different pros and cons. Discussions about the metamodel already took place and quite a bit of the working group time. Decisions were made. The working group is now on avery tight deadline. There is no time to re-open such fundamental decision. Further, after the e-mail exchange that followed, I now understand other consequences of the proposal and see additional problems it would cause. Irene > On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > I would like to see an example of how this works when there are multiple property constraints. I believe that was the problem that Irene saw with it, and sh:property has been explained to me as a way to gather constraints into a graph. > > kc > > On 12/12/16 6:48 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Dimitris made a proposal to close this issue based on one of Peter's >> proposals. Holger opposes it. This is seen by both as an important >> decision for the WG to make so I would like people to vote in the wiki >> on which one they prefer and/or can live with. >> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Proposals#ISSUE-211:_Eliminate_property_constraints >> >> Of course once you're done with that one I encourage you to look at and >> vote on the other issues too. :-) >> Thanks. >> -- >> Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web & Blockchain >> Technologies - IBM Cloud >> > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >
Received on Monday, 12 December 2016 18:14:43 UTC