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

Re: SPARQL TC tomorrow "agenda" and regrets

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:34:43 -0500
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1324323283.6252.1567.camel@waldron>
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 17:39 +0200, Axel Polleres wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> we might have some chairing difficulty tomorrow, but hopefully Sandro can jump in. 

Yes, I'll do my best to chair, although I don't have the full group
state swapped into my brain.

> The main agendum from my side is:
> 
> * Vote on (2nd) LC or CR publications on all docs on http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/PostLastCall
> 
> As I can't be there to vote tomorrow: I am fine for publish for all docs, if the editors are.
> As for SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol, here is my *personal opinion*:  if not done so 
> already in today's taskforce call, issues should be resolved after Christmas and we may postpone 
> publication for this one doc,

Makes sense.   I think today's breakout telecon sorted out a solution
with potential to be acceptable to those of us in attendance; we should
know via email before the meeting.  

Does this WG normally allow editorial fixes AFTER the WG decision?  Some
groups do this.  I know I found several typos in Graphstore yesterday
that I haven't even had a chance to send in yet.  They're not
showstoppers, but it would be nice to get them fixed before publication.
In some WG's, we approve publication, pending certain changes being made
to the satisfaction of certain named parties.

>  but should strive for publication of all others by Christmas.

We're already into a publication moratorium [1].   So the next possible
publication date is Jan 2.   (That would be cool: 20120102)   So, I'd
revise this goal as: doing what we need to do before Christmas, for a
Jan 2 publication.

> * As for ACTION-569: when publishing we shouldn't forget to  have some template text (bold face?) that we might skip to PR with out CR 
> on drafts where the implementation requirements are already met. I herewidth suggest the following simple standard sentence 
> for all our LC publications in this round to be added in bold face or inside a box in the "Status Section":
> 
>  "The SPARQL WG is considering publishing the next iteration of this document directly as Proposed Recommendation, if the implementation requirements 
>  that normally have to be proven during Candidate Recommendation phase are already fulfilled, see http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html" 
> 
> Please discuss if possible, if this is sufficient, or whether this sentence needs adaption.

Looks reasonable.   Slight rephrasing, aiming for a little more
procedural precision:

        The SPARQL WG welcomes reports of implementations, sent to the
        comments address.  If we gather sufficient evidence of
        interoperable implementations, the group may request to skip its
        <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">Call
        for Implementations (Candidate Recommendation)</a> drafts and
        have the next round of publications be  <a
        href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfr">Proposed Recommendations</a>.
        
  -- Sandro


> Thanks, all from my side  & best regards,
> Axel
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 19:36:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT