Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work?

Erik,

This is a small group with too many parallel efforts. This, in my view, is distractive and unsustainable.

I agree with Peter that writing the spec should be a priority. It will outline the entire language. The process of jointly writing and reviewing it will facilitate convergence. There can still be some disagreements and open switches, but at least they will be clearly identified within the context of the overall spec making it easier to resolve them.

Once there is convergence, other documents could be written.

Otherwise, it will deteriorate to every person writing their own document without any alignment across these. Then everyone reads everyone else's document (who has time for this?) and they all argue till the cows come home or the group disbands. 

I am not familiar with W3C processes, but it is hard for me to imagine how such approach could be effective and lead to consensus. 

Irene

> On Mar 14, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-03-12 13:56-0700]
>> There were a number of WG members who voted for:
>>  b) The main specification shall include the higher-level language
>>  constructs only and the rest shall be defined in add-ons.
>> 
>> Can any one describe how this option would work?  Would there be a single
>> way of defining the meaning of the entire language (main spec and add-ons)
>> or would there be several ways of the defining what constructs mean?
> 
> As a down-payment, I offer <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/>.
> I hope to produce a start on an axiomatic semantics and a SPARQL semantics
> tomorrow.
> 
> 
>> peter
> 
> -- 
> -ericP
> 
> office: +1.617.599.3509
> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
> 
> (eric@w3.org)
> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> email address distribution.
> 
> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
>

Received on Sunday, 15 March 2015 14:48:53 UTC