- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:04:26 -0700
- To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
It is not helpful when responses from working group members come back with incorrect information or are hostile to fixing problems that have been noticed, such as https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0031.html and also other recent responses which I am prepared to directly mention if you still want me to. Such responses are much more likely when working group members respond directly instead of having the working group respond after some internal discussion. If such responses are not directly challenged by the working group chair or other working group members they end up being associated with the working group as a whole. The working group should be involved in attempts to craft fixes to problems brought up in external comments. The working group may decide that a particular problem can be best solved by a discussion between the commenter and a member of the working group, but that should only be done in specific cases. Having fixes come from unrestrained communications between commenters and multiple individual members of the working group can easily lead to poor solutions. It may be possible in some cases for direct communication between commenters and individual working members to come up with good solutions. This is likely to only be possible the working group members involved in the discussion are knowledgeable and deferential to the concerns addressed by the commenters. This is not currently happening in too many cases. As far as I know there is no closure on most of the recent issues that I have discovered so it is too early to categorically state that final answers are not adequately addressing my concerns. However, the current situation is not encouraging. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 09/28/2016 06:12 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > Hi Peter, > > As you know, I too am grateful for your feedback. I thank you for taking the > time to review the spec and share your findings. > > The WG has adopted a process to deal with public comments in which WG members > are welcomed to answer public comments directly to the extent possible. All WG > members are on this list and on the look out for controversial statements. > When necessary issues will be discussed within the WG and if necessary > recorded as formal issues in tracker. I can assure you that the WG is paying > attention as the agenda of this week's call shows. > > Technically speaking, the process doesn't require us to formally dispose of > the comments we receive at this stage on the Recommendation track but it's to > everybody's benefit to try and address them earlier rather than later. > > To that end I think we all gain from having WG members engage with you (and > other people who are commenting on this list) in an effort to understand what > the problems you're raising are and testing whether a particular answer might > address them. > > If you feel that the answers you are getting fail to adequately address your > issues, please, let us know which ones they are. > > Thank you. > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM Cloud > > > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 09/28/2016 > 07:40:45 AM: > >> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> >> To: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> >> Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org >> Date: 09/28/2016 07:42 AM >> Subject: Re: the role of public-rdf-shapes@w3.org >> >> On 09/27/2016 10:15 PM, Simon Steyskal wrote: >> > Hi Peter! >> > >> > First, I think I speak for the majority of the WG when I say that I truly >> > appreciate your effort in thoroughly reviewing the SHACL spec. Thanks a lot! >> >> Thanks. It is reassuring to have a message that goes counter to the recent >> actions of the working group and communication within it. >> >> >> I have been playing along by responding to personal responses to >> my comments >> >> on "Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)" that I have sent to >> >> public-rdf-shapes@w3.org. >> > >> > Unfortunately, I'm not really sure what you mean with "I have been playing >> > along by responding to personal responses to my comments". Could >> you elaborate >> > on that? >> >> There have been a number of responses to my messages from individual members >> of the working group. I have tried to respond to these as best I can, even >> though this mailing list should be for communications between the working >> group and commenters on the documents produced by the working group. Back and >> forth involving members of the working group acting personally instead of for >> the working group as a whole generally ends up making it harder to determine >> whether the working group is meeting its requirement to adequately address >> comments on its documents. >> >> >> These messages are all intended to be official comments on the document. I >> >> await a response from the W3C Data Shapes Working Group for each >> and every one >> >> of them. >> > >> > Just for clarification, do you mean "response from the WG" as in [1]? >> >> Well, such a message is part of what the working needs to do to adequately >> address comments. However, the referenced message is not a complete response >> as it does not contain information on the result of the issues opened as a >> result of the message. >> >> > br, >> > simon >> > >> > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016May/0008.html >> > >> > --- >> > DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal >> > Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna >> > >> > www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys >> >> peter >> >> >> >> >> > Am 2016-09-28 00:51, schrieb Peter F. Patel-Schneider: >> >> I have been playing along by responding to personal responses to >> my comments >> >> on "Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)" that I have sent to >> >> public-rdf-shapes@w3.org. >> >> >> >> These messages are all intended to be official comments on the document. I >> >> await a response from the W3C Data Shapes Working Group for each >> and every one >> >> of them. >> >> >> >> >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> >> Nuance Communications >> >
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 23:04:59 UTC