W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: charter extension/updating the schedule

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 20:22:27 +0100
Message-ID: <4CA78673.5050108@epimorphics.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 01/10/10 14:43, Axel Polleres wrote:
> Dear all,
> we have to formally request an extension for the Working Group and have
> discussed among the chairs and team contacts to ask for a 9-month
> extension with the following schedule update with regards to our charter [1]

Could you put some detail on this timescale, showing where everything 
fits in and what we have to do at each stage.

My counting is ...

> LC Dec 1
Which will be 6 weeks?
Includes XMas.

Then 2/3 weeks for comment handling to get to:

> CR Feb 1
About 8 weeks maximum to nearly end March.
Then 2 weeks to ...

> PR Apr 15
> REC Jun 1
> In case you have severe reservations against this schedule, we kindly
> ask you to object/comment until
> Monday evening, before we send the official request.
> Thanks a lot,
> Axel
> 1. http://www.w3.org/2009/05/sparql-phase-II-charter.html

Getting finished is important.

Some of the documents are at LC quality or very close, others are not.

My part of query needs some work on it and I would hope to be able to 
complete it by LC if nothing else arises but there is no room for 
manoeuvre.  We haven't sorted out the protocol, function library or JSON 
format(?) - none of them is large, but it's all time out of the period 
to LC.

The timescale to LC is quite tight from my personal point of view.  Dec 
1 is about 8 weeks away and I have at least one week out during that 
time. During that time we have to organise reviews of documents.

In the past, we have talked about a longer than minimum LC and working 
on the test suite during this time.  Comments will arise, need dealing 
with and some will require WG discussion during and after LC.  The LC 
seems to be at the shorter end of things followed by a short gap; it 
includes Christmas holidays.  The time for the test suite looks cramped.

It's more than just writing and agreeing the tests.  During CR, we 
solicit implementation reports.  We have some nearly-complete 
implementations with the WG but I'm not aware of any outside the WG (any 
news here?). Last time we had external implementation reports [1].

We need a process to report - presumably EARL based again but we do need 
to get the details sorted (update, new protocol).  All doable but they 
need time to do.  The time for that seems to be taken by the LC cycle. 
Doing comment handling and preparing the test suite seem to be occupying 
the same time allocation.

Looking at the proposed timescale, there seems to little room for any 
issues arising, and little room for work on the test suite.  If nothing 
untoward happened it would be possible but pragmatically it looks rather 

Was my time-counting about right?


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/implementations
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2010 19:23:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:02 UTC