Re: ISSUE-95: New proposal for metamodel

Irene/Karen,

Correct. We had a discussion but did not reach a consensus. Simon
participated and wrote a summary here [1].

[1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Meeting_minutes_SHACL_metamodel_discussion

-- Arthur

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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 wasn┬╣t achieved. Thus, the request for involvement
> of the broader group.
>
> Irene Polikoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/23/16, 5:23 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> 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.)
>>
>>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_simplificati
>>>ons#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_simplificat
>>>>ions#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/+1-510-984-3600
>>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 00:49:01 UTC