W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-12@w3.org > April 2019

Re: CG startup

From: Karima Rafes <karima.rafes@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 21:25:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CALsrFgOyCq4jyWTuXaK5GEQbMyfktHQg9cOq9yq9VDp=XG1=BA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Cc: "SPARQL 1.2 Community Group" <public-sparql-12@w3.org>

I am glad to see the startup of this CG.

Can I suggest to change a sentence in this template ?

"The group MAY HAVE TO produce test suites to support and tools to
evaluate the compliance with the Specifications."

For 4 years (when I had the time), I developed a tool in order to start to
test the SPARQL protocol :
The tests are now reproductible via Github and Travis CI.

It's only a first step.

I will be very honor, if my contribution can help your CG to accelerate the
implementation of SPARQL 1.2.
If the CG uses this tool, I will try to extend it to tests all
communications between SPARQL services.

Best regards
Karima Rafes

Le lun. 1 avr. 2019 à 17:08, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> a écrit :

> Hello everyone.
> We have a good number of participants to get started; a few people are
> navigating processes and their organisations to sign up.
> How we operate is up to us, the main W3C provision is that we operate
> under the "Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct". We ought to record
> decisions openly and of preference use the public list.  We'll
> undoubtedly refine how we work as things progress.  W3C do suggest a CG
> charter and there is a template:
>    http://w3c.github.io/cg-charter/CGCharter.html
> which seems like a good thing to fill out.
> The goal is to collect and describe SPARQL 1.2 features. I'm sure that
> there will be suggestions we don't see as a simple evolution of SPARQL
> 1.1 and we can collect those and label them appropriately.
> Process:
> We get to decide our processes.  Here are some ideas (weakly held opinions)
> Mailing list:  process and coordination.
> GH issues:     technical discussions
> GH pages:      material for a feature
> Telecons:      always hard to find a timeslot
> We use GH issues for technical discussions - this is easier than having
> to extract discussions from email archives and makes it easier to follow
> some discussions and not others.
> If an issue is leading to a feature, small or large, and someone from
> the CG offers to take on the editor role for it, then a GH page (or
> pages) can be started.  If we have some basic template, it'll help
> producing summaries later.
> Discussions around the feature can remain on issues (really, this is up
> to the people involved in the feature).
> How do people feel about telecons? Start without and have them when it's
> clearer how they are useful?
> Chair:
> I think we should have at least two for coverage. Some button has
> already added me (and I'm willing to do it) and I'd like to suggest
> Jerven Bolleman as a co-chair.
> Github repo:
> We have a github repository: https://github.com/w3c/sparql-12
> where there is a minimal place holder github page.
>    https://w3c.github.io/
> Nearby:
> The "RDF Test Curation Community Group" looks after the RDF and SPARQL
> test suites, fixing mistakes and adding tests for clarification.
>    https://w3c.github.io/rdf-tests/
> The SPARQL Errata document:
>    https://www.w3.org/2013/sparql-errata
> is the W3C process for recording errors in the specs. The specs
> themselves don't change and there isn't a working group active with the
> charter to change/update them.
> W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
>    https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
>      Andy
Received on Monday, 1 April 2019 19:25:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:45 UTC