Re: ISSUE-95: New proposal for metamodel

I am trying to bring structure into the further discussion on the 
metamodel, as I am keen to finally make progress. We have two specific 
proposals on the table, unless someone else comes up with something very 
different and sufficiently worked out. I believe both Proposal 1 
(Arthur) and Proposal 3 (edited by myself) have a lot of overlap, and 
largely only differ in syntactic choices.

So I have tried to focus on 4 TOPICs and came up with sub-proposals that 
people could indicate their preferences for:

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-95:_Template_Simplifications

Thanks,
Holger


On 24/02/2016 11:02, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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 Friday, 26 February 2016 01:29:17 UTC