RE: book-keeping & suggesting some PROPOSALs to approve per email

p.s.: FWIW, I have implemented the change as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012OctDec/0209.html in the Overview editor's draft
at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/sparql11-overview/Overview.xml

Axel
________________________________________
From: Polleres, Axel
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:39 AM
To: Gregory Williams
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Subject: RE: book-keeping & suggesting some PROPOSALs to approve per email

>Do we need a resolution on editorial fixes? I support these, but FYI made an editorial change also to SD based on the recent comment (removing an unused prefix definition in the example SDs).

For explanation, since these are changes after we voted, at this stage I feel better having these approved by the group.

________________________________________
From: Gregory Williams [greg@evilfunhouse.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:40 AM
To: Polleres, Axel
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Subject: Re: book-keeping & suggesting some PROPOSALs to approve per email

On Dec 18, 2012, at 5:29 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote:

> PROPOSED: approve editorial fix in query as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012OctDec/0210.html
> PROPOSED: approve editorial fix in Overview as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012OctDec/0209.html

Do we need a resolution on editorial fixes? I support these, but FYI made an editorial change also to SD based on the recent comment (removing an unused prefix definition in the example SDs).

>  PROPOSED: remove all unapproved test cases from the manifests (and move them to a separate folder for “unapproved” test cases)

I support removing them, but don't think it's a good idea to move them into an "unapproved" folder. There's quite a bit of cruft in the manifests, but most of it isn't "unapproved." Does "unapproved" mean we never got around to approving it (like the 2 rif tests)? Or ones that we retracted after first approving (like the pname escaping test)? Tests like the pname escaping test are obviously wrong and should simply be removed. I've attached a patch to the manifests that I'd like to commit that does this.

I'd be OK with moving the two un-approved rif tests into an "unapproved" folder.

The only other test I'm not sure about is negation/manifest#temporal-proximity-by-exclusion-minus-1 which is commented out of the negation manifest list, but the test data is in the manifest file (not commented out) and marked as having been approved on 2012-01-31. Did we retract it at some point?

> p.s.: this does not yet contain any proposal on how to proceed with the comment we got on the protocol validator, cf.http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Dec/0006.html ... hope this will sorty out per email, if
> someone more swapped in could take care, it’d be appreciated!

I don't think this is a problem, as I mentioned in email to Rob and the list.

.greg

Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 07:47:55 UTC