- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:07:32 -0700
- To: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
I am deeply disappointed that the working group voted to close ISSUE-142. My recent examination of the Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) document indicates that there are still very many places where terminology is not correctly supported or used, some of them central parts of SHACL. I have pointed out some of the terminology problems that I have noticed, for example in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0035.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0034.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0105.html There *still* needs to be a comprehensive attempt *done within the working group* to clean up the use of terminology in the spec. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 23:08:04 UTC