- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:47:40 +1000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
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. 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 > > > >
Received on Monday, 12 June 2017 21:48:20 UTC