Re: on the closing of ISSUE-106

You're implying again that the resolution hinged on not knowing that the 
issue was not an editorial issue. As I said, I don't believe this was the 
case and the resolution doesn't say that.

I understand that Holger listed them in an email as editorial but that 
alone has no bearing on the process. I chaired the call and introduced 
these issues to the WG along with the proposed resolutions, as you've seen 
me do many times. Never did I say in doing so that these were editorial, 
nor did I hear anyone referring to them as such on the call. They were not 
recorded as editorial and were not processed as editorial - you may 
remember that we agreed to let editors close editorial issues on their own 
without formal resolution from the WG. 

As you also know, resolutions are only confirmed when we approve the 
minutes on the next call so, WG members will have the opportunity to 
object next week if they feel they were misled. I'll make sure to 
highlight your concern and ask the WG if anyone wants to reopen these 
issues.
--
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 11:16 PM
Subject:        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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>