Re: WG meeting 2017-04-05

If that's practical it seems like it'd be useful, maybe to name that 
subset.   But I don't think it's necessary.

      -- Sandro

On 04/04/2017 05:55 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> 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 
>> <mailto: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/
>>
>> 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
>>
>