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

thoughts on SPARQL WG schedule

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:03:16 +0100
Message-Id: <6B485C37-A9EE-4E38-976A-B2B229115F04@deri.org>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dear all,


This is what I think could be a further draft schedule in order to still stand a chance to get through 
to recommendation within our current charter [1] schedule. 

Please, everybody, if you have a chance to check this prior to tomorrow's call, think about feedback:

* LC for missing docs by end of March:
** by 06/03/2012: finalise GSP, TSV+CSV, Overview for LC (and Query, if we decide to change the grammar)
** by 13/03/2012: assign reviews for LC GSP, TSV+CSV, Overview (and Query, if we decide to change the grammar)  
** by 20/03/2012: vote to publish LC for GSP, TSV+CSV, Overview (and Query, if we decide to change the grammar)
   publish by 27th, LC period until April 24th. 
   (At this point, I consider the changes we in Update are editorial and do NOT require another LC round) 

* PR (skipping CR phase),i.e. have two interoperable implementations per spec and process all comments by end of April:
** 27/03/2012 run through all documents, and determine whether there are any substantive open comments 
   (as TC time allows, we should run through other docs and check beforehand already, obviously)
** 03/04+10/04/2012 re-check implementations/test cases, editorial issues for PR
** 17/04 assign reviews for PR for all docs
** 24/04 vote for publishing all docs as PR
** 02/05 (01/05 is a public Holiday in may countries) publish PR, review period 4 weeks until June 4.

---> Assuming no critical comments, we could still wrap up until end of June, as planned.

Any thoughts on optimisations or where/whether we can "parallelize" anything, would be welcome.

I personally think there is not a lot of "buffer" here and we are already running on "emergency fuel tank" in this calculation, 
as I have already assumed we skip CR. I'd like to discuss tomorrow what editors think and whether the W3C team contact 
thinks that's feasible at all. If we agree that's manageable, I guess we have to stick to it very tightly and all be committed 
to push through that last mile.

Apart from that it's not clear to me whether W3C would grant another charter extension, 
I'd also like to know where people stand personally: in my own case, it would be important 
to wrap by end of June as planned, as a matter of resources.

Thanks all & talk tomorrow,
Axel

BTW, question/check again: Have we made clear in ALL LC docs that we may advance to PR directly?  

1. http://www.w3.org/2011/05/sparql-charter

-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: AxelPolleres
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 21:03:47 GMT

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