W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: json result format --> new charter !?

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 15:24:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4DDE6283.9080507@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
I'd prefer to publish as a REC, especially given the increased 
importance of JSON c.f. RDF/JSON.

"""
Serializing SPARQL Query Results in JSON, new version, Working Group Note.
"""
can be understood as Working Group Note referring to to 
current-at-charter status.

How much work is it?

	Andy

Isn't a REC a subclass of Note ? :-)

On 24/05/11 21:40, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> In a minor procedural disaster, it turns out the SPARQL Charter says
>
>   Deliverables:
>     ...
>      Serializing SPARQL Query Results in JSON, new version, Working Group Note.
>                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> We can probably amend the charter to fix this fairly easily.   We could
> perhaps even start the process, getting a new charter out for AC
> review, this week.   Any strong opinions either way?
>
> My own feeling is that given where we are in the process, we should
> just leave it as a Note; I don't think implementors will avoid
> implementing this just because it's a Note, if we link it from all the
> right places.   And we can circulate it to get it as much review as we
> need.   You'll have to judge for yourself whether the patent protection
> is important.
>
> I might be biased by wanting to avoid work, though.  If you think it's
> important to have this be a Rec, please speak up now.
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 14:24:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT