W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > February 2021

Re: GitHub Discussions FTW!

From: Hugh Paterson III <sil.linguist@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 22:00:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE=3Ky9Lc1JTGNJwC1P1VrF6MCAjLzZ5pZWd0Lxq4bRqJ0XYcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Trautt, Zachary T. (Fed)" <zachary.trautt@nist.gov>
Cc: "smrtucson@gmail.com" <smrtucson@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
As someone who recently used the feedback link and google form... I would
like to suggest that it might be possible to have a github discussion
thread for each term and link to that thread from each "feed back" link...
I'm not saying this is the best idea, but it seems to be a reasonable one.

all the best,
- Hugh Paterson III

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 9:18 PM Trautt, Zachary T. (Fed) <
zachary.trautt@nist.gov> wrote:

> I’m grateful for the dedication of the schema.org community and the
> growing impact of widespread adoption!
>
>
>
> I am writing to agree with a statement made earlier in issue 2573 where an
> individual expressed that schema.org has grown too big for any one
> committee to manage. I think a voluntary subcommittee structure could align
> itself to individual Types or clusters of Types.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Zach
>
>
>
> --
>
> Zachary Trautt, Ph.D.
>
> ORCID: 0000-0001-5929-0354
>
> Materials Research Engineer
>
>
>
> Materials Measurement Science Division
>
> National Institute of Standards and Technology
>
> (301) 975-4539
>
> zachary.trautt@nist.gov
>
>
>
> Preferred pronouns: he/him/his
>
>
>
> *From: *"smrtucson@gmail.com" <smrtucson@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:08 PM
> *To: *'Dan Brickley' <danbri@google.com>, 'Thad Guidry' <
> thadguidry@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"'schema.org Mailing List'" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: GitHub Discussions FTW!
> *Resent-From: *<public-schemaorg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:05 PM
>
>
>
> Dan—Interesting conversation.
>
> I was struck by the statement “the systematic problem we have: there's a
> lack of conventions for where and how to file issues and comments on
> schema.org
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966257234%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=F%2BAWYHsKyzDkQN%2FjloJBvZVlVqv28fFgrihjNSX2SIg%3D&reserved=0>
> terms after they've been added”;  I’d add that from my perspective as a
> user trying to use and promote schema.org descriptions for science data,
> a larger issue is a lack of transparency on the decision making process
> that determines when terms will be added to the vocabulary.
>
>
>
> I recognize that schema.org is intended to be useful, but there’s a trade
> off. Developers generally take the simplest route to solving their
> immediate problem; conforming to standards requires more thought and work
> in general. Thus if the criteria for adoption is that a term is used in
> applications, we get what we have—a giant cloud of terms that are specific
> to some particular application but commonly difficult to extend for other
> applications.  This is not good for interoperability. In my particular
> applications, funder, Grant, Award, measuredVariable and Observation come
> to mind.   It seems that modularization of the namespace is going to have
> to happen at some point, with teams managing terms in specific application
> domains.
>
> steve
>
>
>
> *From:* Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2021 10:29 AM
> *To:* Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* schema.org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>; Vladimir Alexiev
> <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>
> *Subject:* Re: GitHub Discussions FTW!
>
>
>
>
>
> I hadn't seen Vladimir's frustrated tweet until your email arrived, but I
> share the frustration.
>
>
>
> While much of the specific criticism lands on my desk, I will ask more
> generally for everyone's sake: let's try to be positive rather than angry.
> When you write angry messages to collaborators in a project like this
> during a pandemic, you are raising the emotional temperature in a room
> filled with people who are already dealing with the pandemic situation and
> its life-changing and life-threatening effects on their family, friends,
> colleagues, jobs, and priorities. Nobody here knows who exactly is dealing
> with what in their private lives right now, so if you feel like shouting at
> strangers on the internet, please take a socially distanced walk instead,
> or do it in another project; preferably your own. I will not use the
> pandemic as an excuse, there are certainly issues in our project here that
> should be addressed, and which predate the pandemic, but it is better to be
> kind, now especially.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> First - on the specific proposal from Thad:  Github Discussions is
> definitely worth investigating here. In fact Richard Wallis this week was
> ready to hit the switch and move
>
>
>
> There is some backstory too: you might recall last year we had over 1000
> open issues in https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues and I
> flagged this as an unsustainable situation.
>
>
>
> Since our vocabulary now has over 2500 terms in it (see
> https://schema.org/docs/schemas.html
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2Fdocs%2Fschemas.html&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966267191%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=UwCcD8iLNvkp7OnrCsMc0QT0AuMV4lgsfW0zjjTTj1U%3D&reserved=0>)
> it is not unreasonable for there to be hundreds and hundreds of discussions
> of those terms. But 1000+ issues in our main repository was a
> dysfunctional situation, which I acknowledged in
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/2573, "We have too many
> open issues (1000)".
>
>
>
> In that issue and nearby we discussed a few approaches to the problem, one
> of which was to tag stale issues automatically so that the can be bumped
> back up to get more of everyone's limited attention. The initial
> configuration of that Github addon was accidentally auto-closing issues at
> the same time for a few days, which didn't help matters.
>
>
>
> The main change we implemented (which cut our core issue list from 1000+
> to around 500 issues) was to move questions, suggestions and brainstorming
> off into another repository. I implemented this after discussing with
> Google Opensource colleagues how other high-visibility opensource projects
> were handling such issues (
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/2573#issuecomment-629470279)
> and just as Thad highlights the NodeJS experience ("I have seen firsthand
> just how wonderful it has made Nodejs community come together"), this
> change was also inspired by the NodeJS project's experience.
>
>
>
> The result was that we ended up with many questions moved to the
> suggestions-questions-brainstorming repository (
> https://github.com/schemaorg/suggestions-questions-brainstorming).  Maybe
> this was not ideal, and people have in recent weeks been mentioning Github
> Discussions as something that is mature and could help here. And on
> Monday's Twitter thread, we were being urged to set up a
> https://www.discourse.org/about
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.discourse.org%2Fabout&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966267191%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=1kuaIPond9jXubTdNT7cTu0%2BSbBhVJGSVUYAx6WONZ0%3D&reserved=0>
> server.
>
>
>
> I recently asked Richard Wallis (who works as a part-time developer
> supporting the project, under contract from Google) to take a look into
> moving those threads back into the main repository as Discussions, but I
> think there is also a risk of seeking technical solutions to
> workflow/documentation and related problems here.  Rather than jumping from
> tool to tool and implementing the switch to Discussions I asked him to hold
> off so we could get v12 out and have a workflow discussion. There are also
> other pieces of Github infrastructure that we could certainly be making
> better use of; most trivially issue tagging, but also the
> .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ mechanism for creating workflows for different
> kinds of issues. For example Richard has migrated our integrity-checking
> tests from Travis-CI to Github Actions in this release, while integrating a
> link checker.
>
>
>
> I have always believed that closed issues remain perfectly fine places to
> continue to share information, but I can understand if commentators feel
> that their insights will be going to waste if typed into an already-closed
> issue. So in https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/2291 Vladimir
> quite reasonably expressed his perspective on the proposal the issue
> tracked. Simon Cox suggested making a fresh issue. Let's set aside for now
> the substance of the critique ("ill conceived and badly executed") and look
> at the systematic problem we have: there's a lack of conventions for where
> and how to file issues and comments on schema.org
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966277150%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=siGK1N1B27oQWFdXPa%2B6IIkVYSxVDzv4TEf2sHd%2BvvM%3D&reserved=0>
> terms after they've been added.
>
>
>
> As part of the move to separate out suggestions, questions, and
> brainstorming from proposals that come with a serious commitment to
> implement in a *consuming* application, I have been encouraging everyone
> (including and especially my colleagues) to articulate explicitly if their
> proposals are associated with a commitment to implement. Schema.org was
> designed to be a vocabulary for large scale implementation by consuming
> applications, and we need to keep a focus on the need for its schemas to be
> *used* (i.e. consumed) rather than merely *published*. This has long been
> stated in https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/blob/main/README.md and
> https://schema.org/docs/howwework.html
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2Fdocs%2Fhowwework.html&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966277150%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=KmxMHikiYkhXna5Zkt4nNOc1jnhaxLQS1YGZHg52kIE%3D&reserved=0>
> but needs to be made a more explicit part of our workflow both for making
> significant schema additions but also for evaluating those terms while they
> are in a "Pending" state.
>
>
>
> There are several pieces to this: minimally when a term e.g. StatisticalPopulation
> or ClaimReview or whatever is accepted into schema.org
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966277150%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=siGK1N1B27oQWFdXPa%2B6IIkVYSxVDzv4TEf2sHd%2BvvM%3D&reserved=0>,
> we should have a more systematic practice for tracking how it is being used
> in consuming applications. It should be much easier to find URLs like
> https://datacommons.org/browser/StatisticalPopulation
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatacommons.org%2Fbrowser%2FStatisticalPopulation&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966287104%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=tGdssWY5WxlaPC4Py3T7tKhzw9v0sNouWM3H64cqN4g%3D&reserved=0>
> or
> https://www.storybench.org/how-claimreview-is-simplifying-the-process-of-fact-checking/
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.storybench.org%2Fhow-claimreview-is-simplifying-the-process-of-fact-checking%2F&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966287104%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=uOiGLstROb4lXZ1SvtgAZLAFv9hfKnqEupHHQkV8nAQ%3D&reserved=0>
> or
> https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2020/how-the-duke-reporters-lab-used-the-political-conventions-to-perfect-its-automated-fact-checking-program/
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.poynter.org%2Ffact-checking%2F2020%2Fhow-the-duke-reporters-lab-used-the-political-conventions-to-perfect-its-automated-fact-checking-program%2F&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966297059%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=TjfcZpc6YCf6ROTmQ3BpUKJHrkEBFNxn0YV6kBJqg18%3D&reserved=0>.
> It should ideally also be part of our shared practice to document the
> specific structured data "graph shapes" that different consuming
> applications are using to validate schema.org
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966297059%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=DOAa1YlbrS9LCsJV9rn2VLHue3j1nVS2KHqDibtdGKc%3D&reserved=0>
> data - using SHACL/ShEx standards. There should be a much clearer workflow
> for feedback on each term, and each bundle-of-terms-in-a-change-proposal.
> While I do not think it healthy to have 1000+ general open issues in the
> project's primary issue tracker, we could easily have e.g. 2500+ per-term
> threads in a dedicated repository or Discussions area, one per term.
> Vladimir is correct to point out that that it unclear whether feedback on
> pending terms is welcomed on closed issues, and that the conventions for
> when to leave issues open vs closed are unclear. It is also fair comment
> that the "leave public feedback" feedback form is not meeting any needs (it
> is very heavily spammed); we should remove it.
>
>
>
> There's more to say on all this, but my core response is that Github
> Discussions may work, but only if we use it as part of a recentering around
> a documented process, so that people don't feel like they are working
> thanklessly on things that are being ignored, or confused about the kinds
> of contributions and collaboration being solicited. I am prioritising these
> and related issues recently, even if the results are not immediately
> obvious. In the meantime, enjoy your weekends...
>
>
>
> cheers,
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 15:34, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan and Vladimir,
>
>
>
> I saw Vladimir's tweet about Schema.org GitHub issues and failing the
> community.
>
>
>
> I think I see a solution where *GitHub Discussions* instead is already
> providing several other open source communities such as Gatsby, Nodejs,
> ImageMagick, just to name a growing few.  I have seen firsthand just how
> wonderful it has made Nodejs community come together and keep the devs
> focused on solving issues.
>
>
>
> *GitHub Discussions* could be enabled to provide the community a place to
> discuss that is separate from GitHub Issues and where you and team would be
> able to turn any discussion into an issue with 1 click whenever desired or
> needed.  Discussions are threaded, linkable, can upvote, and supports
> Markdown, and where you can create general categories such as below:
>
>
>
> GitHub Discussions can be enabled in the project settings.
>
>
> https://docs.github.com/en/discussions/collaborating-with-your-community-using-discussions/about-discussions
>
>
>
> Thad
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fthadguidry%2F&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966297059%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=OR5eXrCG3JuAPjnKLXsUmKgwcxWDdbQ1EnPK%2FUa0Ono%3D&reserved=0>
>
> https://calendly.com/thadguidry/
> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalendly.com%2Fthadguidry%2F&data=04%7C01%7Czachary.trautt%40nist.gov%7C2db9f4c727a0421d6a5408d8d509b52f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637493584966307016%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=fvIs0rGTHW%2F2%2FYMreVol1Y5XMqTqgUTAipLNOcNMgHQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>

image001.png
(image/png attachment: image001.png)

Received on Friday, 19 February 2021 21:01:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 19 February 2021 21:01:22 UTC