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

On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 11:11 +0100, Birte Glimm wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for catching that; done.

   -- Sandro

> 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 18:14:03 UTC