- From: Paul Gearon <pgearon@revelytix.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 10:51:53 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
I agree with Andy. The spec isn't doing its job if most people eschew the formal part of the specification in favor of a Note. (A situation which I'm starting to see already) What exactly is needed right now? I think I can spare a little time for the next week. Regards, Paul Gearon On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: > I'd prefer to publish as a REC, especially given the increased importance of > JSON c.f. RDF/JSON. > > """ > Serializing SPARQL Query Results in JSON, new version, Working Group Note. > """ > can be understood as Working Group Note referring to to current-at-charter > status. > > How much work is it? > > Andy > > Isn't a REC a subclass of Note ? :-) > > On 24/05/11 21:40, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> >> In a minor procedural disaster, it turns out the SPARQL Charter says >> >> Deliverables: >> ... >> Serializing SPARQL Query Results in JSON, new version, Working Group >> Note. >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> We can probably amend the charter to fix this fairly easily. We could >> perhaps even start the process, getting a new charter out for AC >> review, this week. Any strong opinions either way? >> >> My own feeling is that given where we are in the process, we should >> just leave it as a Note; I don't think implementors will avoid >> implementing this just because it's a Note, if we link it from all the >> right places. And we can circulate it to get it as much review as we >> need. You'll have to judge for yourself whether the patent protection >> is important. >> >> I might be biased by wanting to avoid work, though. If you think it's >> important to have this be a Rec, please speak up now. >> >> -- Sandro >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 14:52:21 UTC