W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > July 2015

Re: RDF tests errata

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:38:05 +0100
Message-ID: <55AD6A3D.4010800@apache.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 July 2015 21:38:36 UTC