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

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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:55:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4DE78848.5090204@epimorphics.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

On 01/06/11 17:42, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 17:31 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> 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.

"new information" is a bit unclear when the key fact is internal 
resourcing.  "New information" is usually more about external factors - 
not always but typically.  So delay the decision for now, not make 
it/maybe remake it.

> 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."

As per your original suggestion:

making this a time-permitting
feature, optionally on the Rec Track?

I'd prefer to leave open the possibility of a REC in the rechartering.

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

Stepping back:

The wave function in RDF-WG about strings seems to be collapsing to 
something that I can believe will be stable.

As this is something that is directly visible to applications, through 
SPARQL or otherwise, the potential to revise the SPARQL docs late in the 
process would be good even if we slip a few months.  There's a window of 
opportunity to get specs lined up for once (and from experiences 
chashing through RFCs on, say host name formats, it's quite a valuable 
thing to have).

Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 12:56:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC