Re: on the closing of ISSUE-163

You're are correct that it was based on incorrect information. Dimitris is 
saying it is now resolved. Could you please tell us whether you disagree 
with that?

Thank you.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Cloud




From:   "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
To:     Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, 
Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc:     "public-rdf-sha." <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Date:   09/28/2016 05:51 PM
Subject:        Re: on the closing of ISSUE-163



So ISSUE-163 was closed based on incorrect information then.

ISSUE-163 was opened in response to an external comment, as shown in the 
issue
record at https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/163

The working group should present the commenter with a clear indication 
that
the issue has been cleanly closed.  This would require re-opening the 
issue in
light of its first closure being based on incorrect information.  Given 
that
the issue was incorrectly closed a second closure should involve a 
different
working group member examining the SHACL document to see whether all 
remaining
uses of variations of "constrain" are appropriate.  When the issue cleanly
closed the working group should send a message to the commenter stating 
that
it has closed an issue based on his comments and asking whether he is
satisfied with the resolution of the issue.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 09/28/2016 07:10 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Hi Peter, Karen, 
> I already eliminated all these occurrences
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commits/gh-pages
> 
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Peter, I did miss the "constrains" in the property pair section, so 
I will
>     try to come up with a different wording for that and will propose 
it. The
>     usage in 4.7.2 is, IMO, in accordance with English language usage, 
and I
>     think is appropriate here.
> 
>     kc
> 
> 
>     On 9/27/16 9:16 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
>             >From Section 4.6.1 of Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) 
W3C
>             Editor's Draft 27
> 
>         September 2016 at http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl>
> 
>         "sh:equals constrains a pair of properties so that the sets of 
values
>         of both
>         properties at a given focus node must be equal."
> 
>         This contradicts the claim in
>         
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Sep/0046.html

>         <
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Sep/0046.html
>
>         that ``constraint is still used, but no more "constrain" or
>         "constraining". So
>         it's a thing, but not a verb.''
> 
>         There is a total of six uses of "constrains" in the document.
> 
> 
>         The working group appears to have closed ISSUE-163 based on 
incorrect
>         information.
> 
> 
>         Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>         Nuance Communications
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia 
Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, 
http://aligned-project.eu
> Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>