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

Re: while we are rechartering.... (csv)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:42:55 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1306946575.2913.397.camel@waldron>
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 17:31 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> On 01/06/11 17:19, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> > On 6/1/2011 12:15 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 16:10 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> >>> On 2011-06-01, at 15:45, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 01/06/11 14:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> >>>>> We implement this in Anzo. It's very useful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But, we don't have the bandwidth to produce a new recommendation. I
> >>>>> can't in good conscience support this work at this time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lee
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll do it.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/csv-tsv-results/results-csv-tsv.html
> >>>>
> >>>> We can at least do a NOTE but for this, given deployed experience,
> >>>> the additional REC cost is lower than it might otherwise be. Testing
> >>>> is one such cost but we have to do JSON results testing so adding a
> >>>> parallel .csv and .tsv versions would be enough and there are
> >>>> already tools to produce the formats.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no need for content type registration if we go with
> >>>> existing content types. There are text/csv and
> >>>> text/tab-separated-values.
> >>>
> >>> I'm happy to help out, as I think it's important.
> >>>
> >>> I think I agree with Lee that Rec track would be unwise though.
> >>
> >> Can we compromise in the new charter by making this a time-permitting
> >> feature, optionally on the Rec Track? So we'll try to do it as Note,
> >> but if somehow circumstances give us the time, we're allowed to make
> >> this a Rec. And maybe have a WG Resolution that it'll be a Note, to
> >> make it clear we wont even discuss it being Rec until/unless the chairs
> >> decide there's enough new information to re-open the issue.
> >
> > I'm OK with that approach.
> 
> I'm OK with this except I don't think it's a "new information" matter 
> but a "decide later" matter.

Can you be a little more specific - I don't follow.

What I was suggesting we that we'd resolve: "We'll produce a spec for
sparql results in CSV and/or TSV.   Given our current timeline and
staffing, it will be a WG Note."

Then, if the timeline or staffing change significantly, we would
reconsider Note-vs-Rec.

    -- Sandro 

> 	Andy
> 
> > Lee
> >
> >>
> >> -- Sandro
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 16:43:06 GMT

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