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

pls review CSV changes (was Re: while we are rechartering.... (csv))

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:06:51 -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: <1307077611.15195.40.camel@waldron>
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 13:55 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 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.

I've edited the draft charter again.  Look for the strong "csv", which
now occurs in four places in the document.

> > 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).

Does this have implications on the charter?   If so, I'm not seeing that
part.

    -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 05:07:03 GMT

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