Re: Templating: a proposed way forward

I was hoping we would get to spend some time on the call discussing the
third agenda item: who is going to do the work, but we ran out of time.

I could use some clarification on what work needs to be done. I'm
referring to this section of Jeni's e-mail from the beginning of this
thread: 

On 9/22/14, 3:30 AM, "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:

>I want to reiterate one particular point that was made during the
>meeting: the Working Group as a whole can only do what the members of the
>Working Group do. Regardless of whether we pursue the specification of a
>templating language, we still have need for volunteers to edit the specs
>for:
>
>  * default conversion to RDF
>  * default conversion to XML
>  * default conversion to JSON
>
>Perhaps the biggest question we have about a templating language is
>actually about the Working Group being able to commit the time that it
>would take to specify it, including all the tests that would be required
>and the need for implementations. Having someone volunteer to edit the
>spec, someone volunteer to manage the test suite, and two people
>volunteer to implement the spec (some of these volunteers may be the same
>people), would make me at least feel a lot happier about taking this on
>within the Working Group.
>


I think I would like to volunteer to manage the test suite. But I want to
be careful not to take on too much, so before I do, I'd like to know more
about what this would entail. Does a test suite exist yet, or would I be
volunteering to start from scratch?

Etc. 

Thanks, 
Bill