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 13:34:59 -0700
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a217ae60-f011-96e7-1c7c-b5471bdfb35a@gmail.com>
The big problem that I see here is that with the closing of this issue there
is nothing to track the continued need for examination of the entire document
to ensure that terminology problems have been eliminated.

Perhaps in a normal course of events this examination could be considered to
be implicit in the activities that occur when a working group produces a new
version of a document and particularly when a working group advances a
document to a new maturity level.  However the situation with the SHACL
document is not normal.  This document has a continuing problem with
terminology that does not appear to be near elimination.  There is even
hostility from within the working group towards fixing identified terminology
problems in the document.

There is thus still a need for an open issue on terminology in general in the
document, to at least serve as a trigger for a comprehensive examination of
the document for terminology issues at later stages of its progress to
recommendation status.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 09/28/2016 01:13 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> 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_
> <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/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
> _http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#action01]_
> </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, 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.htmland
> 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
> editorial.
> 
> 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 20:35:41 UTC

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