Re: on the closing of ISSUE-106

The record of ISSUE-106 is at https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/106

In this record there is

Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO (from holger@topquadrant.com on
2016-09-23)

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed here
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Oct/0223.html

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-107 leaving annotation properties as currently
specified.

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-111 as outdated and too high-level to be actionable.

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-142 as addressed by the Terminology section and
its use throughout the document.

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-163 as addressed (also confirmed by Karen this week).

There is no later indication that there was any examination to see whether or
not ISSUE-106 was indeed editorial nor any indication that there was any
examination of what the actual change was.


At at minimum there needs to be a clear record that the working group has
considered the closure without the incorrect assumption that the changes made
to the SHACL document were editorial and thus did not affect how SHACL works.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 09/28/2016 07:43 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> The resolution was based on a specific set of changes in the specification
> which is identified in the resolution:
> 
> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed by this change:
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/da0f0fbdc4...8e8401ab9d
> See https://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#resolution05
> 
> If you feel the change hasn't addressed the issue, please, let us know what
> else would need to be done from your point of view.
> 
> 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
> Date:        09/28/2016 06:25 AM
> Subject:        on the closing of ISSUE-106
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ISSUE-106 appears to have been closed based on it being an editorial issue/
> See https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Sep/0050.html
> 
> The text of ISSUE-106 is:
> 
> 6.2.3 mentions sh:annotationValue, but the use of this property is not specified.
> 6.2.3 allows sh:annotationVarName to be missing but the behaviour in this case
> is not specified.
> 
> These are not editorial concerns.
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 15:28:31 UTC