Re: on the closing of ISSUE-106

I understand but there is a record of the resolution, and it does not 
hinge on the issue being editorial or not. I cited it along with the link 
pointing to the minutes from this week's call during which the resolution 
was made. The record you're quoting also contains the following note which 
makes no reference to the issue being editorial:

Related notes:
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed by this change: 
https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/da0f0fbdc4...8e8401ab9d
See http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#resolution05
Arnaud Le Hors, 27 Sep 2016, 16:54:19

The resolution points to a specific set of changes in github which is more 
than is typically captured in resolutions. That should be clear enough.

I don't actually think whether this is considered editorial or not really 
matters. What matters is that the WG decided that this change adequately 
addressed the issue which could then be closed. This was done with 8 WG 
members present and voting.
--
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
Date:   09/28/2016 05:28 PM
Subject:        Re: on the closing of ISSUE-106



The record of ISSUE-106 is at 
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/106

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PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-111 as outdated and too high-level to be actionable.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 no later indication that there was any examination to see whether 
or
not ISSUE-106 was indeed editorial nor any indication that there was any
examination of what the actual change was.


At at minimum there needs to be a clear record that the working group has
considered the closure without the incorrect assumption that the changes 
made
to the SHACL document were editorial and thus did not affect how SHACL 
works.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 09/28/2016 07:43 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> The resolution was based on a specific set of changes in the 
specification
> which is identified in the resolution:
> 
> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed by this change:
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/da0f0fbdc4...8e8401ab9d
> See https://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#resolution05
> 
> If you feel the change hasn't addressed the issue, please, let us know 
what
> else would need to be done from your point of view.
> 
> Thank you.
> --
> 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
> Date:        09/28/2016 06:25 AM
> Subject:        on the closing of ISSUE-106
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ISSUE-106 appears to have been 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-106 is:
> 
> 6.2.3 mentions sh:annotationValue, but the use of this property is not 
specified.
> 6.2.3 allows sh:annotationVarName to be missing but the behaviour in 
this case
> is not specified.
> 
> These are not editorial concerns.
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
> 
> 
> 
>