Re: on the closing of ISSUE-107

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 PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-111 as outdated and too high-level to be actionable.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

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 21:16:58 UTC