Re: ISSUE-95: New proposal for metamodel

Thanks. I'll put all this on the agenda.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote on 02/23/2016 10:50:42 AM:

> From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
> To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 02/23/2016 10:51 AM
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-95: New proposal for metamodel
> 
> Arnaud,
> 
> As Holger stated, we have not converged on a design. In order to break
> the deadlock, we need input from the working group. My proposal is
> [1], which is very minimalistic. If you can fit this into the agenda
> this week, I'd be happy to also walk though my proposal.
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/
> ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Proposal_1
> 
> -- Arthur
> 
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Holger Knublauch
> <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> > After quite some off-list discussions, here is a new proposal for the
> > metamodel:
> >
> > https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/
> ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Proposal_3
> >
> > I believe this proposal addresses most of the concerns and 
inefficiencies
> > (e.g. verbose AbstractXY classes) and was produced as a result of
> > discussions between Arthur, Simon and myself. However, I do not claim 
that
> > all details of this proposal reflect their current view points. I 
welcome
> > anyone's input on what aspects are not acceptable yet.
> >
> > Arnaud, I would be happy to explain this design to the group in the 
next
> > call.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Holger
> >
> >
>