W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Process around property paths

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:08 +0100
Message-ID: <4F969334.7020007@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 24/04/12 07:36, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> After thinking about it for a while, I think it is not necessarily
> a good idea to engage in a discussion on the blog:
> let's please stick to the official channels, i.e. the comments
> list, i.e. at max. respond per email, wirth cc: to the comments list.

The blog comment is about the W3C process which makes it somewhat 
different from the technical comments list used in the process (but not 
about the process).  I changed the email title to reflect this.

W3C is a member consortium:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/membership-benefits

The process is defined in the W3C process document, and in accepted 
practice. The question is whether this working group has followed that 
de jure and de facto process.

[[
A document receives review from the moment it is first published. 
Starting with the First Public Working Draft until the start of a Last 
Call review, a Working Group SHOULD formally address any substantive 
review comment about a technical report and SHOULD do so in a timely manner.
]]

> 1) It is imprecise that we engaged in a discussion
> only after the paper was published, rather we did so upon
> their public comment [1].

> 3) Further, as far as I can see, we *did* reply to *all* their
> comments. It might be true that responding took us a while,
> but the claim that attempts weren't seriously listened
> to by the working group are IMO not justified.

History agrees with you:

The first proposal for property paths in SPARQL 1.1 was published in the 
publication of 2010-06-01 with a link to:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-property-paths/ (2010-01-26)

The comments emails referenced were handled:

2010Oct/0064 :: Sent: Oct/29, reply Dec/2

2010Dec/0007 :: Sent: Dec/15, reply 25/Jan

2011Jan/0023 :: Sent: Jan/25, reply: Feb/6

2011Feb/0012 :: Sent: Feb/9
No reply needed as it says:

[
but since considering multiple paths is
a design decision in SPARQL 1.1 I am OK with that.
]

2011Jun/0002 (Sebastián Conca) :: Sent: Jun/6, reply Jun/21

2011Jul/0004 (Sebastián Conca) :: Sent: Jul/5, reply (LeeF, explaining 
the formal next steps)  Jul/12

> Apart from that, and leaving aside any negative feelings raised by
> such a way of commenting, as mentioned earlier, it could be a good
> idea to engage in a direct discussion (e.g. invite *all* parties
> interested in the topic to a joint telco where we could hopefully clear
> out misunderstandings once and for all) to avoid further
> unjustified "conspiracy theories" as in the blog post response.
>
> Opinions on that?

I think we ought to clarify on the comments list and not use a telephone 
conference so that wider audience can participate.  In the end, SPARQL 
is for people to write apps with.

>
> Axel
>
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jan/0009.html
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 11:49:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:48 GMT