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

Re: Process around property paths

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:13:02 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1335269582.9663.23.camel@waldron>
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 12:49 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 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.

I agree re wider audience.   I think in that context maybe we should
just reply as individuals.   I'm really torn about sharing this data
above (that we did respond to the comments), vs just saying something
like "I'm sorry we didn't take your advice sooner, and I appreciate your
making the effort to explain the problem so clearly."

     -- Sandro

> >
> > Axel
> >
> > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jan/0009.html
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 12:13:17 GMT

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