Re: on the closing of ISSUE-106

I am definitely not implying that the resolution hinged on not knowing that
the issue was editorial.  I am instead saying that there was uncontested
incorrect information sent to the working group about the issue shortly before
the issue was resolved.  It may be that this incorrect information affected
the resolution of the issue, but I don't know whether this was the case.  It
also may be that some working group members did not bother to participate in
the discussion because the issues under consideration had been incorrectly
stated to be editorial, but I don't know that either.  What I did see was this
incorrect information on the working group mailing list and in the issue pages
and no attempt to correct it.  This resulted in my concern that the issue may
not have received the appropriate attention when it was being closed.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications

On 09/28/2016 08:00 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> You're implying again that the resolution hinged on not knowing that the issue
> was not an editorial issue. As I said, I don't believe this was the case and
> the resolution doesn't say that.
> 
> I understand that Holger listed them in an email as editorial but that alone
> has no bearing on the process. I chaired the call and introduced these issues
> to the WG along with the proposed resolutions, as you've seen me do many
> times. Never did I say in doing so that these were editorial, nor did I hear
> anyone referring to them as such on the call. They were not recorded as
> editorial and were not processed as editorial - you may remember that we
> agreed to let editors close editorial issues on their own without formal
> resolution from the WG.
> 
> As you also know, resolutions are only confirmed when we approve the minutes
> on the next call so, WG members will have the opportunity to object next week
> if they feel they were misled. I'll make sure to highlight your concern and
> ask the WG if anyone wants to reopen these issues.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM Cloud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> To:        Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc:        public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
> Date:        09/28/2016 11:16 PM
> Subject:        Re: on the closing of ISSUE-106
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> I am disappointed that you feel that it was acceptable to close a working
> group issue when unchallenged false information about the issue had recently
> been sent to the working group in the email message archived at
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Sep/0050.html
> 
> I ask that the working group reopen the issue because of the new information
> that this is not an editorial issue.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
> 
> 
> On 09/28/2016 09:11 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>> I understand but there is a record of the resolution, and it does not hinge on
>> the issue being editorial or not. I cited it along with the link pointing to
>> the minutes from this week's call during which the resolution was made. The
>> record you're quoting also contains the following note which makes no
>> reference to the issue being editorial:
>>
>> *Related notes:*
>>
>> RESOLUTION: Close _ISSUE-106_
>> <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/106>as addressed by this
>> change: _https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/da0f0fbdc4...8e8401ab9d_
>> See _http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#resolution05_
>>
>> /Arnaud Le Hors, 27 Sep 2016, 16:54:19/
>>
>> The resolution points to a specific set of changes in github which is more
>> than is typically captured in resolutions. That should be clear enough.
>>
>> I don't actually think whether this is considered editorial or not really
>> matters. What matters is that the WG decided that this change adequately
>> addressed the issue which could then be closed. This was done with 8 WG
>> members present and voting.
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM
> Cloud
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:        "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>> To:        Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
>> Cc:        public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
>> Date:        09/28/2016 05:28 PM
>> Subject:        Re: on the closing of ISSUE-106
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> The record of ISSUE-106 is at
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/106
>>
>> In this record there is
>>
>> Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO (from holger@topquadrant.com on
>> 2016-09-23)
>>
>> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed here
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Oct/0223.html
>>
>> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-107 leaving annotation properties as currently
>> specified.
>>
>> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-111 as outdated and too high-level to be actionable.
>>
>> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-142 as addressed by the Terminology section and
>> its use throughout the document.
>>
>> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-163 as addressed (also confirmed by Karen this week).
>>
>> There is no later indication that there was any examination to see whether or
>> not ISSUE-106 was indeed editorial nor any indication that there was any
>> examination of what the actual change was.
>>
>>
>> At at minimum there needs to be a clear record that the working group has
>> considered the closure without the incorrect assumption that the changes made
>> to the SHACL document were editorial and thus did not affect how SHACL works.
>>
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Nuance Communications
>>
>>
>> On 09/28/2016 07:43 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>>> The resolution was based on a specific set of changes in the specification
>>> which is identified in the resolution:
>>>
>>> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed by this change:
>>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/da0f0fbdc4...8e8401ab9d
>>> See https://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#resolution05
>>>
>>> If you feel the change hasn't addressed the issue, please, let us know what
>>> else would need to be done from your point of view.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>> --
>>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM
>> Cloud
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:        "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>> To:        public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
>>> Date:        09/28/2016 06:25 AM
>>> Subject:        on the closing of ISSUE-106
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ISSUE-106 appears to have been closed based on it being an editorial issue/
>>> See
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Sep/0050.html
>>>
>>> The text of ISSUE-106 is:
>>>
>>> 6.2.3 mentions sh:annotationValue, but the use of this property is not
>> specified.
>>> 6.2.3 allows sh:annotationVarName to be missing but the behaviour in this case
>>> is not specified.
>>>
>>> These are not editorial concerns.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>> Nuance Communications
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 3 October 2016 20:58:00 UTC