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" <>
To:     Dimitris Kontokostas <>, 
Karen Coyle <>
Cc:     "public-rdf-sha." <>
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 
record at

The working group should present the commenter with a clear indication 
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 
the issue was incorrectly closed a second closure should involve a 
working group member examining the SHACL document to see whether all 
uses of variations of "constrain" are appropriate.  When the issue cleanly
closed the working group should send a message to the commenter stating 
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
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Karen Coyle <
> <>> 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) 
>             Editor's Draft 27
>         September 2016 at
>         <>
>         "sh:equals constrains a pair of properties so that the sets of 
>         of both
>         properties at a given focus node must be equal."
>         This contradicts the claim in

>         <
>         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 
>         information.
>         Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>         Nuance Communications
>     -- 
>     Karen Coyle
> <>
>     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 
> Projects:,,
> Homepage:
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT

Received on Thursday, 29 September 2016 03:00:45 UTC