- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:36:14 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Having all these up to date is probably a hard requirement for advancement to CR stage. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 02/15/2017 03:47 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Almost all closed issues now have a note pointing at their resolution. We will > try to keep these up to date moving forward. > > Holger > > > On 10/02/2017 5:36, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> 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, 16 February 2017 03:36:51 UTC