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

This was indeed a bit geeky. I have changed it to

Target
Atargetrelates ashape 
<http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-shape>with itsfocus nodes 
<http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-focus-node>. SHACL provides 
several different kinds of targets, most notably theSHACL instances 
<http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-shacl-instance>of a 
givenclass <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-shacl-class>, 
specifically enumeratednodes 
<http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-node>, or allobjects 
<http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-object>orsubjects 
<http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-subject>of a givenpredicate 
<http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-predicate>. Targets are 
represented by triples in theshapes graph 
<http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-shapes-graph>, for example 
using the property |sh:targetClass|. Validating ashape 
<http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-shape>involves validating 
the target nodes for all targets of the shape.

which is hopefully clearer. (The example for a triple would have been 
using sh:targetClass while an example for a node would have been a 
custom sh:target, but you are right this level of detail was not 
contributing anything at this stage).

Thanks,
Holger


On 14/08/2016 13:52, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> "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>. “
>
> 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 
> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>>
> Date: Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:00 PM
> To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto: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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>