Re: notice of potential formal objection

Peter,

Thanks for letting us know about your intentions. This does not come as a surprise. Earlier in the week you sent an e-mail describing your outstanding issues with pre-binding. You also provided us with input on this topic during the WG call you participated in this week. 

In your e-mail and during the meeting, you conjectured that certain problems are easily fixed. We intend to make progress towards addressing this and I hope to be able to notify of you of such progress in a response to that e-mail. 

Further, note that SHACL SPARQL is marked as “feature at risk" in the published draft.

Hopefully, you will be sufficiently satisfied with the changes and, as result, decide not to file a formal objection. If however, you will still feel a strong need to do so, you know how to exercise that privilege :)

Regards,

Irene


> On Mar 10, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure how the process for filing a formal objection against a
> transition request decision would work, so I'm stating here my intentions.
> 
> 
> The current definition of pre-binding in SHACL has multiple known problems.
> As pre-binding is currently such a central part of SHACL, SHACL should not
> proceed to candidate recommendation unless these problems are fixed.  If there
> is a decision to proceed to candidate recommendation status without fixing
> these problems I intend to file a formal objection as soon as practically
> possible after I learn about the transition request.
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> 
>

Received on Friday, 10 March 2017 17:42:20 UTC