on the closing of ISSUE-142

I am deeply disappointed that the working group voted to close ISSUE-142.

My recent examination of the Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) document
indicates that there are still very many places where terminology is not
correctly supported or used, some of them central parts of SHACL.

I have pointed out some of the terminology problems that I have noticed, for
example in
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0035.html and
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0034.html and
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0105.html

There *still* needs to be a comprehensive attempt *done within the working
group* to clean up the use of terminology in the spec.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications