- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:22:56 -0400
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > How are we capturing the details of agreements? In the issue tracker > but at some point they need to be backed up by test cases. Are we > doing that as we go along or as a later phase? Good question. In general, I'm pretty happy with carefully worded WG resolutions, but I agree that test-case-backed resolutions are preferable. I'm not sure how best to proceed on test cases - I suppose it makes sense to leverage the framework of the DAWG, but I'd really love to have a volunteer or volunteers to act as test case editor / curator. Lee > I suggest now because it gets some work happening in parallel and > it's a more concrete record than WG wording of resolutions. You also > get to find out when some other issue affects a decision as well. > > Andy
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 15:23:54 UTC