- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:04:50 -0400
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> > > >>>> It would be nice to see a member submission so that it's the
> > > >>>> users and tool makers defining this.
...
> > > After all, if the submission is robust enough, we could always pick
> > > it up and fast track it (or a subsequent group can). I guess, Andy,
> > > that you're pointing out that doing this in group at this point runs
> > > some risks even if it only adds a small amount of admin overhead
> > > (given the group resource constraints).
...
> > Perhaps it's already clear, but in case anyone doesn't know, the Member
> > Submission process is only for work that is outside the scope of any
> > working group [1]. I guess the thinking here is that it will be
> > determined later ("time permitting") whether or not it's in scope. In
> > that case, I suppose a Member Submission would be okay, but it stikes me
> > as rather heavyweight.
>
> We have a fairly tightly defined charter now, based around the F&R
> document. My suggestion of putting it with "Query language syntax"
> (although the F&R doc does list the assumed syntax features) was the
> closest I could see but that was not acceptable. A Member Submission
> was then the closest I could think of for a new time-permitting
> feature.
>
> Sandro: Would an interest group note would possible?
Of the Semantic Web Interest Group? Possibly, but it doesn't seem like
a great fit. I'm not sure how the SWIG could make a decision to publish
such a note.
I do think a member submission is technically doable, as long as the
SPARQL WG declares the work to be out of scope.
But the normal approach, I think, would be for someone to prepare it and
show it the WG, and if the WG says "sorry, we don't have time to
actually work on this right now" (or they just don't want to), then they
publish it as a WG note. For example, as I recall this is what happened
with LBase [1] in RDF Core and OWL 1 XML [2] in WebOnt.
-- Sandro
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/lbase/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-xmlsyntax/
Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 17:04:59 UTC