Re: charter nominally extended + old drafts

fyi: I've just finished updating the UCR (cf. commit [1])

br simon

[1] 
https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/11609d69a14545a3cd50e89619c4d81b648faad2

---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2017-06-12 20:53, schrieb Simon Steyskal:
> Hi!
> 
> I'll give the UCR a final read tmrw and report back as soon as I'm
> finished.
> 
> br simon
> Hi!
> I'll give the UCR a final read tmrw and report back as soon as I'm 
> finished.
> br simon
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Date: 6/12/17 20:38 (GMT+01:00)
> To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Subject: charter nominally extended + old drafts
> 
> 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
> -------- Original message --------From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Date: 6/12/17  20:38  (GMT+01:00) To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Subject: charter nominally extended + old drafts
> 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 Friday, 16 June 2017 06:48:25 UTC