Re: Quick "last call" before CR for Data Shapes' SHACL

Peter,

As far as I can tell, the only substantive “new" information in this e-mail is that you will not be able to review the recent changes made in response to your previous comments and formal objections until the week of March 20th, at the earliest. Similarly, you are planning to determine which of your comments may not yet have received an adequate response and will not be able to do so until the week of March 20th.

I said “new” because you already informed the working group of your time constraints during the WG meeting you attended on Tuesday. We have heard you. Of course, the sooner you can send your comments the better, but we understand that you have constraints.

All other topics you brought up in this e-mail are already captured as separate e-mail threats. Please let me know if I am missing anything.

Regards,

Irene



> On Mar 9, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I have sent in a number of comments to the working group, at least one at the
> request of the working group.  Some of these comments have received no
> response at all from the working group.  Some other of these comments have not
> received a complete substantive response from the working group.  For yet some
> other of these comments the last response from the working was that an issue
> was being opened.  I may be able to find time to determine which of my
> comments have not received adequate response but I will almost certainly 
> be able to do this until at least the week of 20 March 2017.
> 
> I had previously commented that even though I had produced two separate
> implementations of a version of SHACL I would not be producing an
> implementation of SHACL as it was defined in February 2017.  This comment did
> not receive any response from the working group even though I indicated why I
> would not be producing an implementation.   The problematic part of SHACL for
> my implementation has changed but I do not know whether the changes result in
> the possibility of my implementation being compliant with SHACL.
> 
> I have found a number of serious problems in the recent versions of the SHACL
> document and have sent these in to the working group.  Some of them remain
> unaddressed in current version of the SHACL document, including the problems
> with syntax checking and pre-binding.  Some of them have resulted in major
> changes to the definition of SHACL and to the SHACL document, including the
> problems with validation result generation and sibling shapes.  I have not
> reviewed all these changes and do not expect to be able to devote much more
> time to this review until at least the week of 20 March 2017.  Also having to
> determine the status of my comments may push this date back considerably.
> 
> There are a number of problems that I have found that need to be fixed before
> candidate recommendation.  The most important of these that are as of yet
> unaddressed in the SHACL document are the interoperability problems caused by
> the failure to require complete syntax checking and the multiple problems with
> pre-binding.  The problems with sibling shapes and validation reports also
> need to be fixed before candidate recommendation, but I do not know whether
> the recent changes to the SHACL document include a complete fix for either of
> these problems.
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
> 
> 
> On 03/03/2017 11:54 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 
>> The RDF Data Shapes Working Group is nearing the end of its charter and wants
>> to do one last quick check to see if there's anything that really MUST be
>> fixed before going to Candidate Recommendation.
>> 
>> New draft published today: https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/
>> 
>> As the draft says:
>> 
>>  * Please provide your *feedback by Friday, 17 March 2017* at the latest. If
>>    you need more time than that, please let us know what you need.
>>  * If you have made earlier comments that you don't consider as having been
>>    addressed, please tell us again.
>>  * We are especially interested in plans to implement. Comments simply
>>    indicating plans to use this work are also helpful.
>>  * You can either submit your feedback as an issue on our GitHub repository
>>    <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues> (preferred) or via the public
>>    mailing list <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/>.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>>      -- Sandro Hawke, W3C, on behalf of the RDF Data Shapes Working Group
>> 
>> 
>

Received on Friday, 10 March 2017 16:09:14 UTC