- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:38:05 +0100
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 19/07/15 19:19, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2015 12:53 PM, "Andy Seaborne" <andy@apache.org > <mailto:andy@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > On 19/07/15 16:18, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: ... > > Eric, > > > > There are two things: > > > > 1/ The tests as approved during the WG process > > These were the state implementations reported on. > > > > Will there still be these frozen files (on w3.org? <http://w3.org?>)? > > Yeah, but I think it's fine to stick them someplace obscure linked from > the live tests and the snapshot of the implementation report. > > > 2/ A live evolving set of tests > > > > Is the governance going to be the same as document comments? > > I suspect that the right level of governance is a community group. What > say you? Mainly I was asking about the details of [[ Per consensus in an INK Domain call, W3C would like to move tests and implementation reports to github ]] A community group feels the right thing to do; IPR etc. It answers the practical matter of who own the github repo (W3C). A question left is about decisions of that group. What if any, standing do the changes have? Are they errata for the formal test suite? or a bunch of changes made by a self-selected group of volunteers? (For SPARQL, W3C still officially controls and mediates additions to the SPARQL errata for example) > > > Andy > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 20 July 2015 21:38:35 UTC