W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > February 2017

Re: information lacking for closed issues

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>
Message-ID: <10216761-ed71-4460-3ed6-3b28bd7e13f2@gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:48 UTC