Re: charter nominally extended + old drafts

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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Received on Monday, 12 June 2017 22:44:47 UTC