Re: Comments on NF&R

2009/2/9 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

> On 9 Feb 2009, at 22:07, Christine Golbreich wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> On 2009/2/9 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Not to sound like a broken record, but if:
>>>       http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#F9:_Key
>>> is the text, it still fails to address the specifics of Jim's comment.
>>>
>>> It also doesn't address the rationale for non-functionality.
>>>
>>> I note that it's quite a mess too, with repetition and a lot of emphasis
>>> on stating *what* the features are rather than explaining *why* they are
>>>
>>> It needs a major rewrite and from someone who understands the rationale.
>>>
>>
>> ? !!
>>
>
> Well, I presumed, perhaps wrongly, that you didn't include various
> rationales because you were unaware or didn't quite understand them.


>
>  I volunteer, but not right now. It's hardly pressing as this document is
>>> not in LC.
>>>
>>> I still have many concerns with the document duplicating text from other
>>> documents (e.g., the grammar productions). It would be nice if we would
>>> discuss it at some point. I'm happy for there to be an issue.
>>>
>>
>> 1) The point raised by Jim was "why the last axiom wasn't entailed by the
>> HasKey" in the example. This  question is about the feature itself not about
>> "why" this feature.
>>
>
> I never said it was. I said it was about WHY *this aspect* of the feature.
> The current text does not explain why this aspect of the feature (unlike the
> text added to the syntax). I provided text that explains why this aspect of
> the feature, but it was not incorporated in any way.


Could you please summarize in one sentence what you would like to be added ?


>
>
>   He explicitely asked for more documentation to prevent other users to be
>> surprised by non intended inferences due to the sepcificities of hasKey.
>>
>
> Yes, which the Syntax changes address but the NF&R does not.
>
> Therefore, I updated the NF&R section regarding key accordingly.
>>
>
> As I've pointed out several times, you have not address the rationale for
> this aspect of the feature. I'll happily explain again, if you'd like.
>
> We had agreed
>>
>
> I would appreciate that you cite precisely the agreement in the minutes.
>
> at the following TC that we will add more documentation on HasKey in the
>> different documents and send it in the reply.
>>
>
> I do not believe that was, in this form, resolved by the WG.
>
> 2) It was agreed by the WG
>>
>
> Actually, I do not believe the WG has made such a decision.
>
> that the New Features and Rationale will provide two aspects for each
>> feature: the "what" in subsection 'Feature' (an understandable description
>> of the feature) and the "why" in subsections "theoritical perspective" and
>> "implementation perspective".
>>
>
> Uhm...this was my proposal. Though, more precisely, the first part was to
> have been a "rationale from the user perspective" *NOT* another explication
> of the feature. This is a strong point of disagreement.
>
> I repetitively asked for contributions on the latter before the FPWD.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what that timing has to do with anything. I made several
> proposals that have influence the shape of the draft.
>
> Boris and others have volunteered (but not you).
>>
>
> I have provided extensive commentary about the document. I have proposed
> text. I'm not sure what relevance any of that has, though.
>
> Finally, after having complemented these subsections (thanks), they said
>> and it was agreed that it was fine like it.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what that has to do with me.
>
> 3) Thanks for the "mess"!  (note that you added repetitions with earlier
>> text in the Syntax as well. I did not mention it to move forward.)
>>
>
> Repetition alone does not cause problems. If you look at the key, you
> copied a large chunk of text in the theoretical section from the original
> proposal and it doesn't fit in well.
>
> In any case, if you would like to point out problems with the Syntax
> document, please go ahead.
>
> Hopefully other comments from external people, users but not only, show
>> that they do appreciate documents writen to be read by 'humans', and that
>> the overview (of "what") provided by NF&R is required to help the approach
>> of 'nicer' documents.
>>
>
> This doesn't follow. I agree that the NF&R is a useful document and have
> said so (e.g., at the last F2F).
>
> As far as I can see there has been many LC comments on the features
>> themselves but none asked  for a better explanation of the "why".
>>
>
> I am.
>
> And, uhm, yes they have. There are a slew of comments claiming that various
> features are "unmotivated". These are from people who focused on the NF&R
> document. Some of this is unexpected by everyone (I certainly didn't think
> the XML Syntax needed an explicit section in the NF&R! or anywhere, really),
> some is due to the relatively immature state of the draft (it started much
> much later than the other documents, and has undergone great improvements;
> I'd like to improve it further...why is that a problem?)
>
> Looks like it's your single view.
>>
>
> That's irrelevant in a consensus situation. It's also irrelevant in
> determining the merits of my position.
>
>  Until now, you are the only one having concerns with the NF&R.
>>
>
> And so? I've been trying to read it carefully and thoughtfully. I'm sorry
> that's not what you want from me.
>
> You still have the opportunity to provide a more extended explanation of
>> the "why" in the Primer as well.
>>
>
> There will be, but that's a separate document. And the primer isn't about
> providing rationales for new features.
>
> BTW I'm still looking for  the revision of the Primer which has been
>> delayed several times.  If I remember correctely, an updated version was
>> expected early January to be reviewed.
>>
>
> Yes that did not happen. Fortunately the reason for that deadline (to
> engender more LC comments) has been mooted (given the flood :)). The primer
> will be updated in due course. I'm primarily waiting on the OWL API update
> so I can fruitfully make changes to the example.
>
> Of course, that's irrelevant to my comments on NF&R. So I'm not sure why
> you bring it up.
>
> At the moment, I've been trying to work on LC comments, which are more
> pressing, I think.
>
> I'm sorry you feel that you can simply ignore my comments until I get
> exasperated enough to sharpen my tone. But none of my comments have been out
> of line, afaict, out of order, or, even, unhelpful.
>
> I've note contributed more text because, thus far, you've ignored my
> contributed text.
>
> Pulling back to the point, I do not believe the NF&R document current
> addresses any last call comments on keys.
>
> It would help, imho, us to reach some level of consensus if you would
> examine the text I provided which I believe *does* address Jim's comment and
> concern.
>
> It would also help if you weren't so touchy about the document. I'm
> offering my comments in good faith and intend them to be constructive. I
> apologize for my frustration at your ignoring them to bleed through to my
> tone here, but I hope you can put that behind you.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>


 I may answer the rest of your email further point by point. But, sometimes
like now, I do not answer because  I think it's wiser, otherwise it would
never end and also bother everybody. Be sure that I never ignore comments. I
always take all comments into consideration when relevant and constructive.

Best

Christine