Re: charter nominally extended + old drafts

Great.    Can people please take a look and say if they think it's good to publish as a note?    Thanks.

    - Sandro

On June 16, 2017 2:47:52 AM EDT, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote:
>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