Re: [W3C Process] Specberus errors when attempting to publish SHACL spec

"A target is a triple
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/#dfn-rdf-triple>  or a node
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/#dfn-node>  in the shapes
graph <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/#dfn-shapes-graph>  that
specifies which nodes
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/#dfn-node>  in a data graph
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/#dfn-data-graph>  are
validated against a shape
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/#dfn-shape> . ³

I found this confusing.

Can you give an example of when a target is a triple that specifies which
nodes are to be validated and another example of when it is a triple that
specifies which nodes are validated?

Irene 

From:  Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date:  Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:00 PM
To:  public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: [W3C Process] Specberus errors when attempting to publish
SHACL  spec
Resent-From:  <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Sun, 14 Aug 2016 03:00:52 +0000

    
 A bit of trial-and-error later, it worked! New version went out at
 
     https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/
 
 The changes that I had to make was to switch some URLs from http to https.
Well, glad to know the W3C changed their policy...
 
 Thanks
 Holger
 
 
 
On 13/08/2016 22:16, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
 
 
>  
> 
> On Aug 13, 2016 06:09, "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Hi Simon,
>>  >
>>  > thanks for looking into this. I see still nothing wrong. The
>>  >
>>  > <section id="sotd"></section>
>>  >
>>  > that produces this text is still there and hasn't been changed for months.
>> Also, we do have an entry
>>  >
>>  > wgPatentURI:  "http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/73865/status",
>>  >
>>  > which will be used to populate the patent policy. I did some more (failed)
>> attempts playing with document status (to WD). I also compared our metadata
>> with one that was recently published without problems, but don't see any real
>> differences.
>>  >
>>  > I am clueless at this stage and will need to post to some other W3C
>> mailing list (unless someone here has other ideas). Just to let you know that
>> we have  a delay with the publication.
>  
> 
> Automation is great, except when it isn't.
>  
> 
> I am, in principle, on vacation at my grandmother-in-law's cabin for 9 days
> but I'll find some opportunity to sneak away, some outlet to power my laptop
> (I never go anywhere without it), and some digital network to transport my
> bits.
>  
>  
> 
>> > Holger
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > On 12/08/2016 16:29, Simon Steyskal wrote:
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Hi!
>>>  >>
>>>>  >>>  "key": "no-disclosures",
>>>>  >>>  "type": {
>>>>  >>>  "name": "sotd.pp"
>>>>  >>> .............
>>>>  >>>  To me these look like problems in the header metdata, but I am not
>>>>  >>> aware of changes from our side. I tried to make sense of this using
>>>>  >>> https://www.w3.org/pubrules [2] and the little info that I could find
>>>>  >>> on specberus, but maybe those more experienced with the W3C process
>>>>  >>> (cough, Eric) may have seen this before?
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Sounds like it's about the document status section [1]:
>>>  >>
>>>  >> "§ It MUST include this text related to patent policy requirements (with
>>> suitable links inserted; see guidelines for linking to disclosure pages):
>>>  >>
>>>  >>     This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February
>>> 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent
>>> disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page
>>> also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has
>>> actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains
>>> Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section
>>> 6 of the W3C Patent Policy."
>>>  >>
>>>  >> cheers,
>>>  >> simon
>>>  >>
>>>  >> [1] https://www.w3.org/pubrules/doc/rules/?profile=WD#document-status
>>>  >>
>>>  >> ---
>>>  >> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
>>>  >> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
>>>  >>
>>>  >> www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Am 2016-08-12 05:03, schrieb Holger Knublauch:
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>> I was trying to publish a new version of the SHACL spec using Echidna
>>>>  >>> but this time got two new errors that I cannot explain:
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>> "specberus": {
>>>>  >>>  "status": "failure",
>>>>  >>>  "errors": [
>>>>  >>>  {
>>>>  >>>  "key": "no-disclosures",
>>>>  >>>  "type": {
>>>>  >>>  "name": "sotd.pp"
>>>>  >>>  }
>>>>  >>>  },
>>>>  >>>  {
>>>>  >>>  "key": "no-homepage",
>>>>  >>>  "extra": {
>>>>  >>>  "homepage": "http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/ [1]"
>>>>  >>>  },
>>>>  >>>  "type": {
>>>>  >>>  "name": "sotd.group-homepage",
>>>>  >>>  "section": "document-status",
>>>>  >>>  "rule": "WGLink"
>>>>  >>>  }
>>>>  >>>  }
>>>>  >>>  ]
>>>>  >>>  },
>>>>  >>>  To me these look like problems in the header metdata, but I am not
>>>>  >>> aware of changes from our side. I tried to make sense of this using
>>>>  >>> https://www.w3.org/pubrules [2] and the little info that I could find
>>>>  >>> on specberus, but maybe those more experienced with the W3C process
>>>>  >>> (cough, Eric) may have seen this before?
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>  (Besides, what would be the URL to give to the pubrules test server?
>>>>  >>> I tried
>>>>  >>> 
>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/data-shapes/gh-pages/shacl/index.html
>>>>  >>> [3] but that produces 28 errors).
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>  Thanks!
>>>>  >>>  Holger
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>> Links:
>>>>  >>> ------
>>>>  >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/
>>>>  >>> [2] https://www.w3.org/pubrules
>>>>  >>> [3] 
>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/data-shapes/gh-pages/shacl/index.html
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>