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
