Re: on the closing of ISSUE-142

While we closed this issue, Mark took an action to take a read through the 
spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed. So we're not saying 
we're done. It was felt that ISSUE-142 was too broad at this stage to be 
very useful. As one WG member said it's a bit as if we had an issue about 
the fact that the spec isn't finished.

I trust that Mark will take into account the problems you already raised 
in completing his action item. If there are others, please, let us know.

Thank you.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Cloud




From:   "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
To:     "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Date:   09/28/2016 01:08 AM
Subject:        on the closing of ISSUE-142



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