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

Re: 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: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:25:21 -0700
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF52CFD106.58D9B8DC-ON88257FA4.0058B8E2-88257FA4.005A35C8@notes.na.collabserv.com>
Hi all,
I want to make sure everybody understands the change we agreed to 
yesterday.

Per yesterday's resolution editorial issues should now include 
"[Editorial]" in the subject line. These issues will no longer be disposed 
of by the whole WG but handled directly between interested parties 
(typically editors+issue owner+commenters).

Practically speaking, after you raise such an issue you may go ahead and 
mark it as "open". Once the issue has been addressed it can also be closed 
directly by one of the parties involved. Just make sure as much as 
possible that there is agreement it is actually ok to do so. If an issue 
is closed prematurely just reopen it.

In case of contention or if you simply think an issue would benefit from a 
discussion with the WG, let me know and I'll put it on the agenda of our 
call.

Feel free to add the [Editorial] tag to currently open issues where 
appropriate.

Hopefully this new process will let us keep track of all the issues 
without creating too much overhead.

Let me know if you have any questions.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Cloud


Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 04/28/2016 09:40:27 AM:

> From: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date: 04/28/2016 09:41 AM
> Subject: 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)
> 
> 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 Friday, 29 April 2016 16:26:02 UTC

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