Re: on the closing of ISSUE-163

So ISSUE-163 was closed based on incorrect information then.

ISSUE-163 was opened in response to an external comment, as shown in the issue
record at https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/163

The working group should present the commenter with a clear indication that
the issue has been cleanly closed.  This would require re-opening the issue in
light of its first closure being based on incorrect information.  Given that
the issue was incorrectly closed a second closure should involve a different
working group member examining the SHACL document to see whether all remaining
uses of variations of "constrain" are appropriate.  When the issue cleanly
closed the working group should send a message to the commenter stating that
it has closed an issue based on his comments and asking whether he is
satisfied with the resolution of the issue.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 09/28/2016 07:10 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Hi Peter, Karen, 
> I already eliminated all these occurrences
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commits/gh-pages
> 
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Peter, I did miss the "constrains" in the property pair section, so I will
>     try to come up with a different wording for that and will propose it. The
>     usage in 4.7.2 is, IMO, in accordance with English language usage, and I
>     think is appropriate here.
> 
>     kc
> 
> 
>     On 9/27/16 9:16 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
>             >From Section 4.6.1 of Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) W3C
>             Editor's Draft 27
> 
>         September 2016 at http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl>
> 
>         "sh:equals constrains a pair of properties so that the sets of values
>         of both
>         properties at a given focus node must be equal."
> 
>         This contradicts the claim in
>         https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Sep/0046.html
>         <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Sep/0046.html>
>         that ``constraint is still used, but no more "constrain" or
>         "constraining". So
>         it's a thing, but not a verb.''
> 
>         There is a total of six uses of "constrains" in the document.
> 
> 
>         The working group appears to have closed ISSUE-163 based on incorrect
>         information.
> 
> 
>         Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>         Nuance Communications
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://aligned-project.eu
> Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 15:50:40 UTC