Re: ISSUE-95: New proposal for metamodel

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 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 01:03:31 UTC