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: Mon, 30 May 2011 13:59:25 -0400
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1306778365.2913.219.camel@waldron>
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 08:32 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> Overall seems good to me, but I'd suggest a couple of changes:
> 
> In light of the :s :p 18. change I'd propose to weaken the back compat requirement. Maybe something like "...excepting the case of errata", or so. 
> 
> "SPARQL/Update" is now called SPARQL Update. 
> 
> The aggregates section could be read as restricting to aggregates defined in XPath and SQL. 

All done.

   -- Sandro

> - Steve
> 
> Sent on the move.
> 
> On 29 May 2011, at 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
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 17:59:29 GMT

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