Re: on the closing of ISSUE-107

The same response applies here. I agree with you that minutes are pretty 
weak on this one which is unfortunate but as you know often the case. This 
is why I wrote in my previous message:

> 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.

I will add that to tracker to clarify the record.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Cloud




From:   "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
To:     Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:     "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Date:   09/28/2016 05:38 PM
Subject:        Re: on the closing of ISSUE-107



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
2016-09-23)

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed here
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Oct/0223.html


PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-107 leaving annotation properties as currently
specified.

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-111 as outdated and too high-level to be actionable.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
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Aug/0041.html

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
https://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#resolution06

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
> 
> 
> 
>