W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > September 2016

Re: on the closing of ISSUE-142

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:23:30 -0700
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <50902c16-e8bc-ab0a-93f2-2c6bd34f8625@gmail.com>
ISSUE-142 is about a serious ongoing problem with the SHACL document, namely
that it is too loose in its terminology.  This is one of the major problems
with the document.  It has been noted multiple times.  In particular two
external comments to the working group,
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016May/0000.html and
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016May/0004.html, have
portions that are related to loose terminology use in the SHACL document.

There remain many places where the current version of the SHACL document is
loose in its use of terminology.  I have noted several of them recently,
including "deep copy", "equivalent", and property paths.  It is even the case
that one of the terms explicitly called out in the issue description, "value
type", continues to lack a firm definition.

Loose terminology is not just an editorial matter.  For example, the use of
"deep copy" in the SHACL document is a case of loose terminology.  To fix this
one instance of loose terminology requires a close examination of just what
needs to be done and augmenting the definition of SHACL with this definition.
However, the record of ISSUE-142, at
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/142, labels the issue as

Closing an issue is an indication that the working group thinks that the issue
has been satisfactorily resolved.  However, the working group has also
initiated an action for one of its members to examine the document to look for
terminology problems.  That seems to indicate that the working group itself
does not feel that the issue has been satisfactorily resolved.

At a minimum the issue needs to be re-opened, the examination action needs to
be completed, new issues raised as necessary, and a second examination of the
document made to ensure that the new issues cover all terminology problems
before ISSUE-142 is closed.  To do otherwise ignores the history of
significant terminology problems in the SHACL document.  Given that changes
needed to address terminology problems can easily raise new terminology
problems, and indeed have done so in the SHACL document, this second
examination should be delayed until the new issues have been resolved.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications

On 09/28/2016 06:12 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> While we closed this issue, Mark took an action to take a read through the
> spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed. So we're not saying
> we're done. It was felt that ISSUE-142 was too broad at this stage to be very
> useful. As one WG member said it's a bit as if we had an issue about the fact
> that the spec isn't finished.
> I trust that Mark will take into account the problems you already raised in
> completing his action item. If there are others, please, let us know.
> 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" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
> Date:        09/28/2016 01:08 AM
> Subject:        on the closing of ISSUE-142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am deeply disappointed that the working group voted to close ISSUE-142.
> My recent examination of the Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) document
> indicates that there are still very many places where terminology is not
> correctly supported or used, some of them central parts of SHACL.
> I have pointed out some of the terminology problems that I have noticed, for
> example in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0035.htmland
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0034.htmland
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0105.html
> There *still* needs to be a comprehensive attempt *done within the working
> group* to clean up the use of terminology in the spec.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 16:24:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:44 UTC