Re: ISSUE-95: New proposal for metamodel

My understanding is that Arthur had a proposal documented as proposal 1
and Holger had a proposal documented as proposal 2.

Arthur, Holger and Simon met and had a discussion documented on the wiki.

As a result of this discussion, Holger withdrew proposal 2 and developed
proposal 3 as an attempt to converge.
Arthur has not made changes to the proposal 1 and it remains his proposal.

Thus, the convergence wasnąt achieved. Thus, the request for involvement
of the broader group.

Irene Polikoff

On 2/23/16, 5:23 PM, "Karen Coyle" <> wrote:

>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.)
>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] 
>> -- Arthur
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Holger Knublauch
>> <> wrote:
>>> After quite some off-list discussions, here is a new proposal for the
>>> metamodel:
>>> I believe this proposal addresses most of the concerns and
>>> (e.g. verbose AbstractXY classes) and was produced as a result of
>>> discussions between Arthur, Simon and myself. However, I do not claim
>>> all details of this proposal reflect their current view points. I
>>> anyone's input on what aspects are not acceptable yet.
>>> Arnaud, I would be happy to explain this design to the group in the
>>> call.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Holger
>Karen Coyle
>m: 1-510-435-8234
>skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2016 23:35:22 UTC