Re: WG meeting 2017-04-05

Do we need to be more specific as to what is the subset that is being enforced? For example, appendix A list all syntax rules. Would it be possible/useful to add a column to indicate if it is covered by SHACL-for-SHACL?

> On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 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/ <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
> 

Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 21:55:36 UTC