Re: About WG process Re: the role of public-rdf-shapes@w3.org

The worst result of the RDF Data Shapes Working Group, from a W3C viewpoint
and probably from the viewpoint of users of the Semantic Web, is a W3C
Recommendation on SHACL that is full of problems.  The second-worst result of
the RDF Data Shapes Working Group, from a W3C viewpoint and probably from the
viewpoint of users of the Semantic Web, is a W3C Candidate Recommendation on
SHACL that is full of problems and does not progress to recommendation.

What is going to make these undesirable results most likely is not adequately
addressing comments that the working group receives on its working drafts.  If
the working group does not have the resources to consider and respond to such
comments it should just quit now.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 09/28/2016 11:32 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> FYI, the W3C just went through a reorg and there is no more domain and domain
> leads. Within the new organization Wendy has different responsibilities and
> I'm sure the question falls into that but I'd welcome her guidance just the
> same. If not directly she can maybe point us to the right person or info.
> 
> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> As Peter pointed out there is no more formal Last Call. If you'd been at the
> chairs breakfast meeting last week at TPAC you would have heard me lament
> about that change because it has removed what I think was a very useful
> milestone to trigger the process you're referring to and that Peter seems to
> expect.
> Other chairs agreed with me and some indicated that their WGs are essentially
> re-instantiating this step even though it is no longer formally recognize. I'm
> in favor of doing the same.
> 
> As you also know from experience the tracking of every public comment and
> disposition is very heavy. It's one thing to do that at a specific point in
> time. It's another to do that throughout the whole development process. I'll
> admit that I don't know whether this is indeed required at this stage - I
> thought this was only when we are in CR - but I fear that the overhead will
> further jeopardize the outcome of this WG which is quickly coming to its
> expiration date.
> 
> Putting aside the reference to Last Call you make, your point on ISSUE-107
> also brings up the question of what constitutes a "substantive response". I
> fear that this is pretty subjective. I think it is more productive for the
> commenter to simply state that they disagree with the WG's decision and
> explain why, and the WG will have to decide to revisit its decision or face
> the possibility of a formal objection.
> 
> At the end of the day, I would hope that the amount of traffic on this list is
> proof that the WG has taken the public comments seriously and that we can find
> a way that allows us to move forward with minimum overhead. I not only stand
> by my statement that we're better off addressing comments as early as possible
> I also trust that we will all agree that having the WG primarily focus on
> trying to resolve issues remains the most important.
> 
> Best regards.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM Cloud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> To:        Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc:        public-rdf-shapes@w3.org, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>,
> "Wendy Seltzer, Domain Lead" <wseltzer@w3.org>
> Date:        09/28/2016 07:46 PM
> Subject:        Re: About WG process Re: the role of public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> I do note that it appears that there is no longer any official "last call"
> stage in the W3C process.  It thus appears that all comments received on any
> working draft have to be formally addressed before advancement to candidate
> recommendation maturity level.  In effect, there is no longer a "reset" on
> comments at Last Call (assuming that there ever was).
> 
> I have copied the domain lead of the Technology and Society Domain, which
> appears to be the W3C domain of the RDF Data Shapes Working Group, for further
> guidance on this point.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
> 
> 
> On 09/28/2016 09:59 AM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>> I have been following Peter’s comments with some interest …
>>
>> I wondered about this comment:
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 6:12 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com
>> <mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I see that
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/
>>  is governed by the 1 September 2015 W3C Process Document
>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/>.
>>
>> and in the process document I read
>> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#transition-reqs
>>
>> For /all/ requests to advance a specification to a new maturity level
>>
>>   * /must/ formally address
>>     <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#formal-address> all issues
>>     raised about the document since the previous maturity level.
>>
>>
>>  where formally address is:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#formal-address
>> a group has formally addressed an issue when it has sent a public, substantive
>> response to the reviewer who raised the issue. A substantive response is
>> expected to include rationale for decisions (e.g., a technical explanation, a
>> pointer to charter scope, or a pointer to a requirements document).
>>
>> Having worked with Peter commenting on documents which I have edited, I
>> appreciate his desire to receive such a response. It is very much easier to
>> work with a commentator who works within the process.
>>
>> It appears that on several issues that have been raised he has not received a
>> substantive response, and the WG thus needs to track those issues, so that
>> before advancing from Last Call to Candidate Rec, all these issues can be
>> addressed.
>>
>> Conventionally WGs use issue lists for this purpose, and close an issue in a
>> way which keeps a link to the substantive response.
>> Of course you are free to use a back-of-an-envelope for the real status
>> according to the process doc, and to close issues on the issue list when they
>> have not been formally addressed. However, if you do so, and lose that
>> envelope, then Peter, and others, will be able to invoke 6.2.2 to prevent your
>> advancement past last call.
>>
>> Really this is your call, you are quite right to say:
>> " the process doesn't require us to formally dispose of the comments we
>> receive at this stage “
>>
>> but I fear that if you insist on sloppy process at this stage that it will
>> come back to bite you, and I for one, believe that WGs should get into
>> the habit of keeping good records of formally addressing comments before Last
>> Call, which you articulate as “it's to everybody's benefit”
>>
>> In particular, on ISSUE-107, "The WG acknowledged your point but decided to
>> leave the spec as is.” is not a substantive response. It will be very rude of
>> you, if at Last Call, Peter points out that you have not given a substantive
>> response, and then receives one which is “Yes one method would be better than
>> two, but it is not essential, and now too late to improve things.”.
>>
>> I have yet to review your documents, and hope to do so later in the process. I
>> will also be reviewing Peter’s comments at that time, particularly those where
>> he is disappointed with the working-group response: I would normally expect it
>> to be easy to find from the WG records, such comments, the
>> substantive responses, and Peter’s replies to those substantive responses.
>>
>>
>> Jeremy J Carroll
>> Senior Principal Architect
>> Syapse, Inc.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 20:48:12 UTC