W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: documents produced by working group members

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:39:15 -0700
Message-ID: <550ADF93.5070703@gmail.com>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
CC: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Hash: SHA1

In http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ there is

This document was published by the RDF Data Shapes Working Group as an
Editor's Draft.

I don't think that this is correct at all.

Maybe this is a ReSpec issue.  In that case, ReSpec should be changed.


On 03/19/2015 07:32 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> I don't think ReSpec has anything other than "Editor's draft" that can be
> used for this and I believe it is the right status. Editor's drafts are
> just what they are called. These are draft documents that are being
> worked on by the editors and do not necessarily carry any endorsement by
> the WG.
> This remains true until a document is published as a FPWD.
> This being said, I'm all for being very clear on what each document's
> status is and encourage editors to use the status section of the document
> for that matter. I see Eric did that, although maybe a bit succinctly
> in http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/"Proposal to RDF Data
> Shapes WG"
> I suggest all documents carry a similar disclaimer for now because the
> reality is that we only have editors drafts at this point. -- Arnaud  Le
> Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM 
> Software Group
> From:        "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> To:
> RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org> Date:
> 03/19/2015 06:49 AM Subject:        documents produced by working group
> members 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> There are getting to be a number of documents being produced by working 
> group members.  I think that it would be useful to have these documents
> have the correct status.
> For example, I'm not sure that
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ is an RDF Data Shapes Working
> Group editor's draft.  I'm also not sure that the working group has
> requested http://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-semantics/which is listed in the
> document.
> peter
Version: GnuPG v1

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 14:39:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:18 UTC