Hi Yufei, I agree with your suggestion. We can begin the preparatory steps to host Ossie models now and proceed with the integration as soon as the Ossie specification becomes available.
Regards, JB On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 6:55 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
