JB, waiting for Ossie makes sense to me. That said, I'd suggest we work in parallel where possible.
>From my understanding, the main dependency on Ossie is the JSON validator, which will arrive a bit later. Most of the other work can proceed independently in the meantime. I'm also OK moving forward without a formal vote if that's the preferred approach. I would keep the API explicitly in **beta** and make it clear that we intend to transition to the Ossie specification once it becomes available. That gives us a path to make progress now while remaining aligned with the future direction. Yufei On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 5:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > It might be worth waiting for Apache Ossie to bootstrap before proceeding. > While I agree with the intent, I want to avoid duplicative work where we > implement the OSI spec first and the Apache Ossie spec as a follow-up. > Since the OSI spec is transitioning into the Ossie spec, and an initial > Apache Ossie spec release is expected soon, I suggest we pause this vote. > > Additionally, I would prefer to find a consensus rather than holding a > vote, as voting is typically reserved for when consensus is difficult to > reach. This vote could likely be considered a code modification under > Apache voting guidelines (https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html). > > My recommendation is to pause the vote for now and leverage Apache Ossie, > which I am currently working on. > > Thoughts? > > Regards, > JB > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 12:51 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Beta sounds good to me. We can clarify the beta status in a follow-up doc > > change. > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 3:27 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > > > I'd like to understand the impact of this vote better. > > > > > > Are you proposing to accept this new API without first going through a > > > "beta" phase? > > > > > > I think the beta process is pretty standard for new APIs in Polaris > these > > > days (e.g. the Metrics API). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 1:38 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > I'd like to call a vote on accepting the OSI Semantic Model API > > > > specification proposed in PR #4816( > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4816) > > > > > > > > This proposal introduces the initial scaffolding for the Open > Semantic > > > > Interchange (OSI) Semantic Model API in Polaris. The primary goal is > to > > > > establish the REST API surface and associated specification, while > > > leaving > > > > the implementation intentionally minimal. This provides a stable > > > foundation > > > > for future work while allowing the community to iterate on the > > > > implementation independently. > > > > > > > > This vote will remain open for 72 hours. Please vote: > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Accept the proposal > > > > [ ] 0 No opinion > > > > [ ] -1 Do not accept the proposal (please provide reasoning) > > > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the design discussions and > > > reviews. > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > >
