Re: concluding on AbSyn

+1

On 11/07/2017 2:51, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>