So now I admit to some confusion about the authorship and status of proposal #3. Was this written by the three discussants, Holger, Arthur and Simon? (In this case, "written by" would be that all three put their names on the text as representing their views as co-authors.) kc On 2/23/16 10:50 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote: > 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 >> >> > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2016 22:24:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:29 UTC