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

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

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 17:56:26 -0400
To: Paul Gearon <pgearon@revelytix.com>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1306706186.2913.202.camel@waldron>
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 10:51 -0400, Paul Gearon wrote:
> I agree with Andy. The spec isn't doing its job if most people eschew
> the formal part of the specification in favor of a Note. (A situation
> which I'm starting to see already)
> 
> What exactly is needed right now? I think I can spare a little time
> for the next week.

Thank you, but I don't think there's much you can do to help.

To clarify, the problem is that the W3C Patent Policy is based on group
charters clearly identifying which technologies are going to be part of
Recommendations.  Those technologies then have some degree of protection
around patent matters.

Our old charter, unfortunately, did not indicate that the JSON results
format would be part of a Recommendation.  Because of the Patent Policy,
this is not the trivial change it might otherwise be.

It looks like the best solution is to recharter the group.   Normally,
that's a big deal, but because the rechartering is over such a small
matter, it should hopefully also be a small matter.

Rather than just changing "Working Group Note" to "Recommendation", the
chairs and I discussed getting the charter up-to-date on the schedule
and list of deliverables.  I've done this, and I'd appreciate a few more
pairs of eyes on it, to make sure I've done it right, before we send it
out for review by the Advisory Committee.

I believe that review is mandated to be at least four weeks, but I will
double check if there's some way to shortened in in this case.
Unfortunately, I don't think we can publish the FPWD until that review
is complete.

Here's the new charter text (including a link to a diff):
        http://www.w3.org/2011/05/sparql-charter

  -- Sandro



> Regards,
> Paul Gearon
> 
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Andy Seaborne
> <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
> > 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 Sunday, 29 May 2011 21:56:36 GMT

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