Re: WG meeting 2017-04-05

On 04/04/2017 09:50 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
>
> As for the appendix with the SHACL-for-SHACL, my understanding was that it should be “normative” - whatever this means. For example, does it mean that we should say “Shapes graph that doesn’t pass validation against SHACL-for-SHACL is ill formed”?
>

That's a really tricky question.   I thought about it a lot yesterday.

I might do it more like:

    This shapes graph is intended to enforce many of the syntactic
    constraints in this specification.  As such, it can be understood as
    a machine-readable version of a subset of those constraints, and
    should be understood as normative.  If differences are found between
    the constraints expressed here and elsewhere in this specification,
    that indicates an error in this specification.  Please see the
    _errata_ page_ for an enumeration and analysis of possible errors
    that have been reported.   Since the text of this specification
    cannot be updated after publication, consider using an alternative
    version which may have less review but can be maintained, such as
    _link_to_some_maintainable_version.

Does that make sense?

Note that the use of an "Errata" page is required in W3C 
Recommendations.   See for example 
https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/

These days, I'd probably have it redirect to a github query for issues 
with a particular tag.

The 'maintained' version can be formally managed by a Community Group 
after the WG is done, I guess.

       -- Sandro