Re: concluding on AbSyn

+1

Irene Polikoff



> On Jul 10, 2017, at 2:32 PM, simon.steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Samsung tablet.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Date: 7/10/17 18:51 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Subject: concluding on AbSyn
> 
> Sounds good.   Slight rephrase, keeping the spirit, I believe:
> 
> This Working Group Note is intentionally left blank.  It is intended to replace the earlier Working Draft, SHACL Core Abstract Syntax and Semantics, which documented a proposed design.  That proposal did not reach consensus within the Working Group and does not reflect the final design of SHACL. That draft is retained only as a historical artifact and should not be considered as describing SHACL in any way.
> 
> If this works for you, please reply +1 now, thanks.
> 
>       -- Sandro
> 
> 
> On 06/12/2017 06:44 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Maybe: 
>> 
>> This document was an early and unfinished attempt to define an abstract syntax for SHACL (Core). The draft does not reflect the current design of SHACL, did not reach consensus within the working group and was therefore abandoned. 
>> 
>> Yes, if possible I would suggest to make this an empty document. 
>> 
>> Holger 
>> 
>> 
>> On 13/06/2017 7:52, Sandro Hawke wrote: 
>>> On 06/12/2017 05:47 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: 
>>>> The Abstract Syntax document does not reflect the current design and never did. I believe it would be misleading if it were listed as a WG note, found on Google etc. 
>>>> 
>>>> Also, if we are required to publish that draft, then why not the Compact Syntax? 
>>>> 
>>>> I would do nothing with the abstract syntax and remove the remaining links to it from the Wiki. 
>>> 
>>> The requirement is that every Working Draft has to end up a Recommendation or a Note, since Working Drafts are explicitly temporary.  CS never made it to WD, so this doesn't apply. 
>>> 
>>> So, for AbSyn, you favor the zero-content approach.  Can you suggest a sentence or two that explains the situation, to go in the status section? 
>>> 
>>>       -- Sandro 
>>> 
>>>> Holger 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 13 Jun 2017, at 04:38, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> <mailto:sandro@w3.org> wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> For people who didn't see the AC announcement last week when SHACL was published, the WG was also extended by two months, so it can help address any issues that might arise during the AC review of SHACL.    I don't expect we'll need to meet, and we should not take up any new work. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I just noticed, though, that there are two old Working Drafts: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/> 
>>>>> and 
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-abstract-syntax/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-abstract-syntax/> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> These should be republished as WG NOTEs.   If there's no useful consensus text in them, as I can imagine might be the case with absyn, the NOTE can just be a status section explaining why the draft was abandoned. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thoughts on these?   Any last minute cleanup to UCR?   What should we do about AbSyn? 
>>>>> 
>>>>>       -- Sandro 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>