- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:36:52 -0800
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "<public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Yes, yes, something was done, I agree. My point is that the issue should have links to what was done and the rationale for doing this (including a link to the meeting where the decision was made). peter On 02/09/2017 11:34 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: > On this particular issue, WG discussed the topic during 1/25/2016 meeting. I > brought it up. You can see the topic towards the end of the meeting > minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-shapes-minutes.html. It was agreed that > the definition needed work. > > Dimitris created an issue after the meeting. > > WG members iterated over a few drafts during the week that followed. Some of > the iterations and surrounding discussions are in the e-mails attached to that > issue. > > Then, during the meeting of 2/1/2017, the issue was formally opened. The final > result that was (and is) in the section 2.1 was presented for the WG vote and > approved, closing the issue. > > >> On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Issues that have been recently closed are missing information about what was >> done to address the issue. >> >> For example, >> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/220 >> does not say what was done to resolve it. >> >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> >
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 19:37:58 UTC