Re: [SHACL] sh:prefixes

[Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>]

Could you add it to the formal errata list?  It does not appear to be 
listed at

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AErrata

It helps make the case for work to be done.

 > go into that document and fix it

The SHACL CG can publish a revised document as a CG report. While this 
does not replace the REC, it is a way forward - other specs proceed like 
this.

Part of RDF-star WG charter to update specs and also prepare for "living 
standards". SHACL is not on the list but _maybe_ ...

* if it is a small amount of work

* if there is a list of errata so any adding SHACL has known costs.
   Anything open-ended is unlikely to get any traction.
   A CG report is evidence of this.

* There needs to be one or more people to do the work.

In theory, changes to documents in-scope for RDF-star WG can be done by 
by PRs from anyone who is able to sign the necessary IP agreement. It is 
not necessarily only RDF-star WG members make contributions; someone on 
the WG could shepherd it.

     Andy



On 28/02/2023 13:26, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I know, almost everybody stumbles there. It was bad editing by the editor :)
> 
> Unfortunately I cannot just go into that document and fix it. That's the bane of these formal specs, and why many people get work done quicker outside of such formal processes.
> 
> Holger
> 

Re: [SHACL] sh:prefixes

[Holger Knublauch <ho...@topquadrant.com>]

There was a strongly related ticket that I have now tagged as Errata

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/128
Missing prefix in example query · Issue #128 · w3c/data-shapes
github.com

I am certainly curious to see if SHACL can become a living standard. And I'd personally be happy to contribute if that happens.

Holger



> On 1 Mar 2023, at 9:24 pm, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Could you add it to the formal errata list?  It does not appear to be listed at
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AErrata
> 
> It helps make the case for work to be done.
> 
> > go into that document and fix it
> 
> The SHACL CG can publish a revised document as a CG report. While this does not replace the REC, it is a way forward - other specs proceed like this.
> 
> Part of RDF-star WG charter to update specs and also prepare for "living standards". SHACL is not on the list but _maybe_ ...
> 
> * if it is a small amount of work
> 
> * if there is a list of errata so any adding SHACL has known costs.
>  Anything open-ended is unlikely to get any traction.
>  A CG report is evidence of this.
> 
> * There needs to be one or more people to do the work.
> 
> In theory, changes to documents in-scope for RDF-star WG can be done by by PRs from anyone who is able to sign the necessary IP agreement. It is not necessarily only RDF-star WG members make contributions; someone on the WG could shepherd it.
> 
>    Andy
> 
> 
> 
> On 28/02/2023 13:26, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> I know, almost everybody stumbles there. It was bad editing by the editor :)
>> Unfortunately I cannot just go into that document and fix it. That's the bane of these formal specs, and why many people get work done quicker outside of such formal processes.
>> Holger