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

Re: on the closing of ISSUE-142

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 22:13:50 +0200
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Message-Id: <OFE507990B.104BCDBC-ONC125803C.006C2628-C125803C.006F1F60@notes.na.collabserv.com>

I must admit not to really understand your concern here. It's not uncommon 
for WGs to close broad issues and open more specific ones as the work 
evolves. I'm quite confident that you have agreed to do just that while 
you were on the WG.

ISSUE-142 hasn't been deleted from the database and I actually don't think 
it will be very hard for future archeologists to find the thread given 
that the resolution points to the minutes:

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-142 as addressed by the Terminology section and 
its use throughout the document, separate issues should be raised against 
specific terminology issues
See http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#resolution07 

And when I follow that link I see, a few lines below, right in the middle 
of the page:

<Arnaud> ACTION: marqh to take a read through the spec and raise specific 
terminology issues as needed [recorded in 
<trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Take a read through the spec and raise 
specific terminology issues as needed [on Mark Hedley - due 2016-10-04]. 

But, just in case, I have now added a note to ISSUE-142 with a direct 
reference to the above action item.
Let's please remain focus on the goal at hand and not get entangled too 
much into how we get there. I would think it is the WG's prerogative to 
decide how it manages its issues and if when Mark completes his action 
item you find that we've missed something that would have been captured 
within ISSUE-142, please, let us know and I guarantee you that it will not 
remain undocumented.
Thank you.
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" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Date:   09/28/2016 06:23 PM
Subject:        Re: on the closing of ISSUE-142

ISSUE-142 is about a serious ongoing problem with the SHACL document, 
that it is too loose in its terminology.  This is one of the major 
with the document.  It has been noted multiple times.  In particular two
external comments to the working group,
portions that are related to loose terminology use in the SHACL document.

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

Loose terminology is not just an editorial matter.  For example, the use 
"deep copy" in the SHACL document is a case of loose terminology.  To fix 
one instance of loose terminology requires a close examination of just 
needs to be done and augmenting the definition of SHACL with this 
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 
has been satisfactorily resolved.  However, the working group has also
initiated an action for one of its members to examine the document to look 
terminology problems.  That seems to indicate that the working group 
does not feel that the issue has been satisfactorily resolved.

At a minimum the issue needs to be re-opened, the examination action needs 
be completed, new issues raised as necessary, and a second examination of 
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 
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 
> spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed. So we're not 
> we're done. It was felt that ISSUE-142 was too broad at this stage to be 
> useful. As one WG member said it's a bit as if we had an issue about the 
> that the spec isn't finished.
> I trust that Mark will take into account the problems you already raised 
> 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 
> 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, 
> example in


> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0105.html
> There *still* needs to be a comprehensive attempt *done within the 
> group* to clean up the use of terminology in the spec.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 20:14:36 UTC

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