W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-12@w3.org > April 2019

Re: [w3c/sparql-12] Vote for charter.html acceptance at 5d2a2a9 (#75)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:59:49 +0100
To: "SPARQL 1.2 Community Group" <public-sparql-12@w3.org>
Message-ID: <bef3ae98-5b25-30c9-c786-7157ada5a28f@apache.org>
(Taking this comment to the emailing list)
https://github.com/w3c/sparql-12/issues/75#issuecomment-485452783

On 22/04/2019 16:38, Rob Sanderson wrote:
> Community groups can produce specifications, just not W3C blessed 
> technical reports. For example, the Open Annotation CG produced a 
> specification that was implemented by many and then adopted as the 
> baseline for the Web Annotation Data Model. The JSON-LD WG produced 
> specifications that were adopted in the WG almost wholesale. Plus many more.
> 
> I think the charter should say that a SPARQL 1.2 specification will be a 
> deliverable, intended as the input to a WG with SPARQL in its scope in 
> the future. The trend in the W3C towards incubation in CGs is quite 
> strong, and just white papers aren't sufficient demonstration of 
> importance and adoption.
> 
> So I'm 👎 as I feel the charter does not go far enough, but this is not 
> the equivalent of a formal objection.


Rob,

The current state of the issues is very strong on the "demand" side of 
the equation but weak on the "supply" side (e.g. implementations input; 
overall consequences).

This is where a "use case and requirements" step comes in.

An earlier message (April 2):

> It would be a success on the way to a future SPARQL to produce the 
> features document. If there is sufficient energy, then we may continue 
> into a Specification but for the moment, I think we need to  focus on 
> the initial goal which is a necessary step anyway.

The SPARQL 1.1 Working Group had a two step charter - first, a charter 
to produce the UCR document then a charter for the REC of SPARQL 1.1

I believe a straight-to-specification approach is too ambitious, being 
"under construction" for a long period. We can be clear that we are 
undertaking the first step of use case and requirements. Having a UCR 
document is itself a success. Then the amount and nature of the work on 
a specification (or specifications) will be clearer.

Maybe some features will find their way into implementations sooner than 
others - that is not something that this group as a whole can decide.

     Andy
Received on Monday, 22 April 2019 18:00:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 April 2019 18:00:16 UTC