W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > September 2016

Re: on the closing of ISSUE-107

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:38:37 -0700
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5bc59d24-7521-d172-5b8f-6952d86e0eb0@gmail.com>
The record of ISSUE-107 is at https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/107

In this record there is

Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO (from holger@topquadrant.com on

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed here

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-107 leaving annotation properties as currently

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-111 as outdated and too high-level to be actionable.

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-142 as addressed by the Terminology section and
its use throughout the document.

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-163 as addressed (also confirmed by Karen this week).

There is also the earlier relevant email
which also claims that the issue is editorial

The record states that the issue was resolved during the working group meeting
of 27 September 2016 recorded at

The record of discussion on this issue appears to be incomplete.  There is,
however, no record that there was any examination of whether the issue was
editorial or not.  The sole non-zero vote on the issue was from the working
group member who incorrectly labelled the issue as editorial.

At a minimum there needs to be a clear indication that the working group
members who voted on this issue with no change understood that the issue is
non-editorial and that different resolutions of the issue could have made
beneficial changes to how SHACL works.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications

On 09/28/2016 07:48 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> 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 15:39:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:44 UTC