Re: on the closing of ISSUE-106

I am disappointed that you feel that it was acceptable to close a working
group issue when unchallenged false information about the issue had recently
been sent to the working group in the email message archived at
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Sep/0050.html

I ask that the working group reopen the issue because of the new information
that this is not an editorial issue.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 09/28/2016 09:11 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> 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_
> <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 21:16:23 UTC