- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:02:54 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I would characterize the differences much less dramatic than they may appear by having two completely separate proposals. We agreed on a lot of things, and really don't need a shoot-out here. Some nuances are about whether the constraint types are classes or shapes or none of those, and whether sh:parameter takes complex objects or just pointers at properties. Then there is a difference whether we need a new property for the sh:context or whether we can piggyback on sh:scopeClass. We should look at the pros and cons of each of these design decisions without being too worried about who suggested what. Holger On 24/02/2016 10:48, Arthur Ryman wrote: > 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 wasn¹t 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 01:03:31 UTC