- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 10:26:26 -0700
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
As this problem is largely moot, I no longer deem it important enough to raise a formal object over. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 05/10/2017 08:45 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: > Peter, > > The decision to accept tests submitted after the deadline, should the WG vote > to include them, was minuted in > the https://www.w3.org/2017/05/03-shapes-minutes.html. > > Do you see this as a sufficient announcement and are, therefore, withdrawing > your formal objection? If not, let us know what you would see as a sufficient > announcement. > > Regards, > > Irene > >> On May 5, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com >> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> It appears the the working group has changed its policy and will now >> continue to accept test suite submissions subject to a vote of the working >> group. If the policy on test suite submissions has changed and this change >> in policy is announced, this formal objection is moot. >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> Nuance Communications >> >> >> On 05/02/2017 09:58 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: >>> To me, this sounds like a procedural objection: >>> >>>>> Cutting off the submission of tests well before the >>>>> end of the candidate recommendation period hinders wide review of the >>>>> candidate recommendation and goes against the purpose of the W3C process. >>> >>> I think the key phrase is "well before the end of the candidate recommendation >>> period”. >>> >>> I believe the process has been followed: >>> >>> * Obviously, submission of tests to be used as part of the recommendation >>> track process needs to be concluded before the end of the end of the >>> candidate recommendation period. >>> o This is because implementers need time to run all tests and make fixes >>> if necessary. >>> o Then the WG needs to review the results, draft the transition request >>> and decide to submit it. >>> o Then request to transition has to be sent and transition meeting has >>> to happen. >>> o All these activities have to occur before the candidate recommendation >>> period ends. Conservatively speaking, they take at least a month. >>> * Further, the WG issued a “last call” for tests asking any interested >>> parties to let us know if they need extra time and, if so, how much. We >>> promised to “work something out” if such parties tell us about their plans >>> for submitting >>> tests >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Apr/0034.html >>> o The last call also said that additional tests can be submitted at any >>> time - as something for the implementers to test with, but, after the >>> deadline, they will not be used as part of the recommendation track >>> process. >>> * Peter was the only one who responded and his response was not definitive. >>> o I am saying this because he questioned the short timeline and said he >>> was working on additional test cases, but never identified the >>> deadline he could work towards. >>> * We are now a week beyond the date set in the “last call for tests” and the >>> WG has been “working out something" even after that date. This has been >>> hindered by the bugs in submitted tests. I would expect that requiring >>> bug-free test submissions does not violate the process. In any case, I >>> think we went over and above by accepting tests with bugs and fixing said >>> bugs. >>> * Obviously, we need to have a “stop date”. With the charter currently set >>> to end on June 1st, I don’t see how this date can be later than today. >>> >>> >>> Overall, I believe that cutting the submission of the tests 5 weeks before the >>> end of the period is not “well before the end”. In practice, however, WG >>> allowed submission of tests to be used as part of the process for another week >>> - cutting it off 4 weeks before the end which is probably the minimal time >>> required to go through all the logistics that must happened before the period >>> ends. Sandro, of course, as W3C staff member, will be able to tell us if there >>> are any process issues. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Irene Polikoff >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 2, 2017, at 3:53 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com >>>> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com> >>>> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/05/2017 1:50, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>>> This is a formal objection to the early cutoff of submissions to the working >>>>> group's test suite. >>>>> >>>>> The candidate recommendation period in the W3C process is designed so that >>>>> implementers can test out a potential W3C recommendation to see whether >>>>> conforming implementations can be created. Testing to confirm >>>>> implementation behaviour is thus an important part of the candidate >>>>> recommendation process. Cutting off the submission of tests well before the >>>>> end of the candidate recommendation period hinders wide review of the >>>>> candidate recommendation and goes against the purpose of the W3C process. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Two tests were submitted that examine the behaviour of SHACL implementations >>>>> on property paths that contain information about two different kinds of >>>>> SPARQL paths. These tests came from recent implementation experience. The >>>>> aspect of SHACL that they test is not covered by any of the tests in the >>>>> current working group's test suite so without them there is no confirmation >>>>> that there are two independent implementations of SHACL property paths. >>>>> These tests were not accepted. >>>> >>>> Since you seem to find this so very important I have now added these two >>>> test cases to the suite. I still don't agree they are important, but I don't >>>> think this is worth spending any more time on. I have notified the other >>>> implementers about the new test(s) and hope they can re-run their tests. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Two tests were submitted that examine the behaviour of SHACL implementations >>>>> of pre-binding. Pre-binding underlies all of SHACL-SPARQL so it is vitally >>>>> important for SHACL-SPARQL both that pre-binding have a suitable definition >>>>> and that implementations correctly implement pre-binding. The working group >>>>> approved changes to the definition of pre-binding on 26 April 2017 and the >>>>> tests were submitted on 28 April 2017. These tests replaced previous tests >>>>> to examine the behaviour of SHACL implementations of pre-binding that had >>>>> become irrelevant because of the change to pre-binding. These tests were >>>>> not accepted. >>>> >>>> I have just made the use of VALUES in general ill-formed in SHACL-SPARQL, >>>> making your submitted test cases outdated. I had never rejected them, see my >>>> other email in this thread. >>>> >>>> So both of the examples that you have used to motivate your formal objection >>>> are now handled. >>>> >>>> Holger >>>> >>>> >>> >
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 17:27:02 UTC