- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:39:15 -0700
- To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- CC: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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. peter 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 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVCt+TAAoJECjN6+QThfjzRFgH/0WkQO6kF8gAUOW8GhneKaF6 oQ1KgDO167ag9lplQiI2M9GVpQbHx6vmDWk0ZwhrX3tlJz6OMM7gv00ke+5jmGDU A0M8ArSWRidQFFnhitI8tQk2jGumIOw7HMgzxwhXhhYPjLGo2PPg+p4j2X0yHj07 IEw8va3vgmcQ4ZV1os7Nz7IvSnhVIJmY5fLY705Y/eImvXlF5AKDeKeIDD2cUdRc jPTgasEEhNtwSBc5MZp8lQYa/xYQKkgDRdJxNeVRB6Lc5j9qs7A37Xa99Yl9OeqX oyzZ8PP0613kha0+Sh3E5IWA+tOfEdVD7Xyb3KlGvQFkmUQgilNSAGxO9l8Z+UE= =i8n7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 14:39:51 UTC