- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:48:09 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 14:48:44 UTC
The resolution was not based on a claim that the issue was editorial. The resolution reads: RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-107 leaving annotation properties as currently specified See https://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#resolution06 You pointed out that two different mechanisms were used and one would be better. The WG acknowledged your point but decided to leave the spec as is. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM Cloud From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> To: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org> Date: 09/28/2016 06:30 AM Subject: on the closing of ISSUE-107 It appears that ISSUE-107 was closed based on it being an editorial issue. See https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Sep/0050.html The text of ISSUE-107 is Annotation properties use sh:annotationVarName to provide the SPARQL variable name to use. Arguments use the local part of their IRI. It would be better to have one mechanism. This is not an editorial issue. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 14:48:44 UTC