Re: concluding on AbSyn

+1


Sent from Samsung tablet.
-------- Original message --------From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Date: 7/10/17  18:51  (GMT+01:00) To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org Subject: 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