Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Holger Knublauch <>

> On 11/03/2016 1:55, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> On 3/10/16 3:10 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> 1) Proposal 4 is poorly motivated. As Peter stated himself, he started
>>> this effort to simplify the metamodel. He made changes to the end-user
>>> visible syntax in order to "simplify" the metamodel. However, there was
>>> no problem with the end-user visible syntax to begin with. There was no
>>> need to change it, and the new syntax is a step backwards. The metamodel
>>> is far less important than the user-facing syntax.
>> Simplifing the model is a valid motivation. Otherwise we wouldn't have
>> suggested to have a ShEx user interface. As that interface may not be
>> forthcoming, it would be preferable to have SHACL be easily understandable.
>> Otherwise it can only be easily used with a UI on top of it, and that
>> limits its use to those who have access to an application with an
>> interface. I think that would be the death of SHACL.
> +1
> But can you explain what your paragraph has to do with mine?


It is clear to me from previous messages to this list that Peter believes
metamodel simplification generally benefits language design. Your opinion
is that the exercise hasn't borne fruit in proposal 4; that seems fine. But
your point #1 attacking motivation reads as petty and disingenuous. The
claim that metamodel complexity is tied to language comprehension doesn't
seem so outlandish as to justify beginning your analysis by claiming that
the whole effort is doomed as "poorly motivated".

I've been following this work for many months, and have frequently been
dismayed at the level of hostility and bad faith that is apparent in the
group's communications. I hope it can improve.

> Thanks,
> Holger

-Tom Johnson

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 22:04:10 UTC