W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Some ISSUE proposals for this week

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:34:03 +1000
Message-Id: <3207E90A-1D0E-4C67-A3B5-2E02344CBDED@topquadrant.com>
Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>




Sent from my iPad
> On 28 Apr 2016, at 7:13 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Holger,
> Thanks for the input on the agenda.
> 
> Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 04/26/2016 05:33:21 PM:
> 
> > From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> > To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> > Date: 04/26/2016 05:34 PM
> > Subject: Some ISSUE proposals for this week
> > 
> > Given that Peter has sent regrets for this week, maybe we should again 
> > aim at uncontroversial topics.
> > 
> > ISSUE-126 and ISSUE-127 are outdated as both concepts have been replaced 
> > in the new draft. Suggest CLOSE with no action.
> > 
> > ISSUE-132 can be closed: all core constraint definitions have been 
> > generalized to work for all three possible cases.
> > 
> > ISSUE-123 and ISSUE-150 could be handled together. My proposal is to 
> > drop sh:directType and merge sh:datatype and sh:class into sh:type as 
> > outlined on the proposals wiki page. We should do such syntax changes 
> > (if we do them) before the next round of publication.
> 
> I have to admit not to understand the relationship with ISSUE-150 which is about nested severities. Did you mean a different issue?

Sorry, yes I meant 141 (mixed ranges)

Holger


> 
> > 
> > I also notice several high-level ISSUEs that may have outlived their 
> > usefulness or may be outdated:
> > - ISSUE-65 is too general and old to be actionable
> > - ISSUE-111 was created while we discussed to what extent SHACL shall 
> > cover UI properties such as sh:name. We decided to provide limited 
> > support for these, but not much more, so maybe this ticket is no longer 
> > needed?
> 
> I tend to agree but I've been keeping them as reminders. I think we could close those after we've had a review of the draft before publication - at least as far as ISSUE-65 is concerned.
> 
> > 
> > Holger
> > 
> > 
> 
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM Cloud
> 
> 

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 21:34:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:31 UTC