- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:08 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 24/04/12 07:36, Polleres, Axel wrote: > After thinking about it for a while, I think it is not necessarily > a good idea to engage in a discussion on the blog: > let's please stick to the official channels, i.e. the comments > list, i.e. at max. respond per email, wirth cc: to the comments list. The blog comment is about the W3C process which makes it somewhat different from the technical comments list used in the process (but not about the process). I changed the email title to reflect this. W3C is a member consortium: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/membership-benefits The process is defined in the W3C process document, and in accepted practice. The question is whether this working group has followed that de jure and de facto process. [[ A document receives review from the moment it is first published. Starting with the First Public Working Draft until the start of a Last Call review, a Working Group SHOULD formally address any substantive review comment about a technical report and SHOULD do so in a timely manner. ]] > 1) It is imprecise that we engaged in a discussion > only after the paper was published, rather we did so upon > their public comment [1]. > 3) Further, as far as I can see, we *did* reply to *all* their > comments. It might be true that responding took us a while, > but the claim that attempts weren't seriously listened > to by the working group are IMO not justified. History agrees with you: The first proposal for property paths in SPARQL 1.1 was published in the publication of 2010-06-01 with a link to: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-property-paths/ (2010-01-26) The comments emails referenced were handled: 2010Oct/0064 :: Sent: Oct/29, reply Dec/2 2010Dec/0007 :: Sent: Dec/15, reply 25/Jan 2011Jan/0023 :: Sent: Jan/25, reply: Feb/6 2011Feb/0012 :: Sent: Feb/9 No reply needed as it says: [ but since considering multiple paths is a design decision in SPARQL 1.1 I am OK with that. ] 2011Jun/0002 (Sebastián Conca) :: Sent: Jun/6, reply Jun/21 2011Jul/0004 (Sebastián Conca) :: Sent: Jul/5, reply (LeeF, explaining the formal next steps) Jul/12 > Apart from that, and leaving aside any negative feelings raised by > such a way of commenting, as mentioned earlier, it could be a good > idea to engage in a direct discussion (e.g. invite *all* parties > interested in the topic to a joint telco where we could hopefully clear > out misunderstandings once and for all) to avoid further > unjustified "conspiracy theories" as in the blog post response. > > Opinions on that? I think we ought to clarify on the comments list and not use a telephone conference so that wider audience can participate. In the end, SPARQL is for people to write apps with. > > Axel > > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jan/0009.html
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 11:49:40 UTC