concluding on AbSyn

Sounds good.   Slight rephrase, keeping the spirit, I believe:

    This Working Group Note is intentionally left blank.  It is intended
    to replace the earlier Working Draft, _SHACL Core Abstract Syntax
    and Semantics_, which documented a proposed design.  That proposal
    did not reach consensus within the Working Group and *does not
    reflect the final design of SHACL*. That draft is retained only as a
    historical artifact and should not be considered as describing SHACL
    in any way.

If this works for you, please reply +1 now, thanks.

       -- Sandro


On 06/12/2017 06:44 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Maybe:
>
> This document was an early and unfinished attempt to define an 
> abstract syntax for SHACL (Core). The draft does not reflect the 
> current design of SHACL, did not reach consensus within the working 
> group and was therefore abandoned.
>
> Yes, if possible I would suggest to make this an empty document.
>
> Holger
>
>
> On 13/06/2017 7:52, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> On 06/12/2017 05:47 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> The Abstract Syntax document does not reflect the current design and 
>>> never did. I believe it would be misleading if it were listed as a 
>>> WG note, found on Google etc.
>>>
>>> Also, if we are required to publish that draft, then why not the 
>>> Compact Syntax?
>>>
>>> I would do nothing with the abstract syntax and remove the remaining 
>>> links to it from the Wiki.
>>
>> The requirement is that every Working Draft has to end up a 
>> Recommendation or a Note, since Working Drafts are explicitly 
>> temporary.  CS never made it to WD, so this doesn't apply.
>>
>> So, for AbSyn, you favor the zero-content approach.  Can you suggest 
>> a sentence or two that explains the situation, to go in the status 
>> section?
>>
>>       -- Sandro
>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On 13 Jun 2017, at 04:38, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For people who didn't see the AC announcement last week when SHACL 
>>>> was published, the WG was also extended by two months, so it can 
>>>> help address any issues that might arise during the AC review of 
>>>> SHACL.    I don't expect we'll need to meet, and we should not take 
>>>> up any new work.
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed, though, that there are two old Working Drafts:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/
>>>> and
>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-abstract-syntax/
>>>>
>>>> These should be republished as WG NOTEs.   If there's no useful 
>>>> consensus text in them, as I can imagine might be the case with 
>>>> absyn, the NOTE can just be a status section explaining why the 
>>>> draft was abandoned.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts on these?   Any last minute cleanup to UCR?   What should 
>>>> we do about AbSyn?
>>>>
>>>>       -- Sandro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>