Re: Please review the SHACL draft (was Re: Editing progress)

Now that the holiday season is ending, maybe we can make some progress 
in the formal process for the SHACL spec. From the requirements listed 
by Arnaud below it seems that only the first item seems to be 
considerable work. It sounds like we are expected to close all formal 
tickets, see

     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/open

Going through that list:

Substantial Syntax of Semantics issues:

- ISSUE-68: Mostly awaiting input from the SPARQL EXISTS group. Not sure 
how else to proceed.
- ISSUE-92: I failed several times to trigger progress.
- ISSUE-105: Technical question on syntax. We "just" have to pick one 
proposal.
- ISSUE-131: sh:hasShape details, not sure how much is missing here
- ISSUE-155: Should these be generalized to have paths as parameters too?
- ISSUE-158: Not discussed yet, I suggest saying no
- ISSUE-170: Related to ISSUE-68

IMHO "uncritical" and Editorial

- ISSUE-71: Uncritical, just a proposal.
- ISSUE-93: [Editorial] No activity since 2015-10-29
- ISSUE-94: [Editorial] No activity since 2015-10-16
- ISSUE-106: [Editorial] No activity since 2015-10-30
- ISSUE-107: Minor detail, can be resolved either way
- ISSUE-111: High level, should IMHO be closed without action
- ISSUE-137: Additional, optional feature, needs someone to drive it or 
closed
- ISSUE-140: Uncritical, has probably been addressed by now
- ISSUE-142: [Editorial] should IMHO be closed as addressed and outdated
- ISSUE-146: I believe this was done
- ISSUE-150: Can be closed based on recent resolution
- ISSUE-163: [Editorial]
- ISSUE-164: [Editorial] can be closed

For the lower portion, Dimitris and I have work to do. I will probably 
have more time from next week onwards - was very busy recently for the 
5.2 release of TopBraid (which BTW will have significantly improved 
SHACL features, which may help us get more feedback).

Regards,
Holger


On 9/08/2016 10:20, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Thanks Holger for the update. Let's talk on Thursday about the 
> requirements to move the spec to Candidate Recommendation (CR). 
> Unfortunately I don't think we're quite there yet. Here is quick run 
> through the main requirements:
>
> * all known issues impacting conformance of an implementation have 
> been closed.
> * proof of wide review - we need to publish a draft and broadly 
> announce it calling for public comments prior to moving to CR
> * test suite - we at least need to have the framework in place that 
> the specification can point to
> * exit criteria - how do we define what it will take to exit CR - 
> typically a minimum of two implementations of every feature
>
> So, for now, please, everyone, review the spec and let's see on 
> Thursday whether we can agree to publish the updated spec.
>
> Eric and Karen, if you have a chance to update the abstract syntax 
> draft that'd be great. Please, let the WG know when you're done.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies 
> - IBM Cloud
>
>
>
>
> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 08/08/2016 04:17 PM
> Subject: Editing progress
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> FYI I did a complete pass through the spec over the last couple of days
> and fixed a number of inconsistencies and buglets. Dimitris also did
> some updates. In the upcoming meeting we may want to decide to press the
> publish button again? I would be interested to hear what is missing with
> respect to reaching the next phase of the W3C process.
>
> Holger
>
>
>
>
>