Re: json result format --> new charter !?

Overall seems good to me, but I'd suggest a couple of changes:

In light of the :s :p 18. change I'd propose to weaken the back compat requirement. Maybe something like "...excepting the case of errata", or so. 

"SPARQL/Update" is now called SPARQL Update. 

The aggregates section could be read as restricting to aggregates defined in XPath and SQL. 

- Steve

Sent on the move.

On 29 May 2011, at 22:56, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 10:51 -0400, Paul Gearon wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Thank you, but I don't think there's much you can do to help.
> 
> To clarify, the problem is that the W3C Patent Policy is based on group
> charters clearly identifying which technologies are going to be part of
> Recommendations.  Those technologies then have some degree of protection
> around patent matters.
> 
> Our old charter, unfortunately, did not indicate that the JSON results
> format would be part of a Recommendation.  Because of the Patent Policy,
> this is not the trivial change it might otherwise be.
> 
> It looks like the best solution is to recharter the group.   Normally,
> that's a big deal, but because the rechartering is over such a small
> matter, it should hopefully also be a small matter.
> 
> Rather than just changing "Working Group Note" to "Recommendation", the
> chairs and I discussed getting the charter up-to-date on the schedule
> and list of deliverables.  I've done this, and I'd appreciate a few more
> pairs of eyes on it, to make sure I've done it right, before we send it
> out for review by the Advisory Committee.
> 
> I believe that review is mandated to be at least four weeks, but I will
> double check if there's some way to shortened in in this case.
> Unfortunately, I don't think we can publish the FPWD until that review
> is complete.
> 
> Here's the new charter text (including a link to a diff):
>        http://www.w3.org/2011/05/sparql-charter
> 
>  -- Sandro
> 
> 
> 
>> 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 Monday, 30 May 2011 07:33:28 UTC