W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > April 2016

Issues Management (was Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined)

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:40:27 -0700
Message-Id: <201604281640.u3SGeXvt018732@d03av04.boulder.ibm.com>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Several WGs have shifted to using github issues and in doing so adopted a 
lighter process to manage them. Without necessarily switching to using 
github issues there is a couple of key differences that might be worth 
considering from a process point of view:

There is no concept of raised issues. Issues are simply opened.
Issues can be closed without involving the whole WG. Basically, if the 
parties involved (typically editors+issue owner+commenters) agree to a 
resolution one of them simply close the issue. Only controversial issues 
are brought up, discussed, and resolved by the whole WG.

We could certainly adopt this process using Tracker if it's agreeable to 
all. The former would save us the bit of time on calls spent on disposing 
of raised issues. The latter is more significant and would allow for 
editorial and other simple issues to still be tracked without adding too 
much overhead.

People tend to fear this kind of more open systems will be abused but in 
practice this is not the case. Things can always be changed back in case 
of disagreement and change history provides the traceability needed to 
deter bad actors.

I'm happy to entertain a discussion on this if this sounds interesting to 
the WG.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Cloud


Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote on 04/28/2016 07:57:21 AM:

> From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date: 04/28/2016 07:58 AM
> Subject: Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the 
> description of  sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", 
> which is not defined
> 
> Jim, problems raised in emails are not always addressed, and there is no 

> tracking of them. I agree that raising issues sometimes seems extreme, 
> but it is the only mechanism that we have that seems to work. It would 
> make some sense to bring a group of these up as an issue, but then it is 

> hard to close the issue if some are non-controversial and others cannot 
> be decided on.
> 
> I like the idea of making edits that can be reviewed by the group, if we 

> can find a clean way to do that. It is easier to understand the issues 
> raised in the context of the document, and is more useful when the 
> "issuer" can come up with alternate wording.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 4/28/16 6:45 AM, Jim Amsden wrote:
> > A simple fix would be to change "value set" which is a noun that could
> > introduce a term to "set of values".
> >
> > Instead of raising individual issues for these editorial changes, a
> > better approach would be to include a set of them in a document review
> > with proposed changes to address the concerns.
> >
> >
> > Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
> > OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
> > 919-525-6575
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> > To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> > Date: 04/28/2016 03:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description
> > of  sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not 
defined
> > 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > The term "value set" is used with its intuitive plain english meaning,
> > based on the assumption that the reader knows what the team "value" of 
a
> > property means. A value set is then simply the set of all values. How
> > could this be misinterpreted by anyone?
> >
> > Holger
> >
> >
> > On 28/04/2016 16:51, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker 
wrote:
> >  > shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of
> > sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not 
defined
> >  >
> >  > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/154
> >  >
> >  > Raised by: Dean Allemang
> >  > On product:
> >  >
> >  > There is no description or definition of "value set", which is used
> > in the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> 
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 16:41:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:31 UTC