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

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

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:11:48 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTikBED2LART6sMJsm3CQWXFvCEZa5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Paul Gearon <pgearon@revelytix.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Sandro,
given that we decided to use XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1
Part 2: Datatypes [1] for the D-Entailment regime, I think we have to
add that to our dependencies.
Other than that, I read the new text and it looks good to me.
Birte

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/

On 29 May 2011 22:56, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 10:12:16 GMT

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