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

Re: CG startup

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 13:19:27 +0100
To: Karima Rafes <karima.rafes@gmail.com>
Cc: "SPARQL 1.2 Community Group" <public-sparql-12@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d82d3f2a-3647-81df-bd92-b12b6bc3cb8c@apache.org>
Meta: the W3C mailing archives don't handle formatted messages very well:

Hi Karima,

I hope we will see test suites as part of documenting new features where 
appropriate. The scope for the CG formation is about producing 
descriptions of features, use case and requirements and test suites fit 
into that.  The CG is not producing a Specification by the starting scope.

It would be a success on the way to a future SPARQL to produce the 
features document. If there is sufficient energy, then we may continue 
into a Specification but for the moment, I think we need to  focus on 
the initial goal which is a necessary step anyway.


On 01/04/2019 20:25, Karima Rafes wrote:
> Hello
> 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 :
> http://tft-reports.bordercloud.com/
> 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 
> <mailto: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 Tuesday, 2 April 2019 12:19:53 UTC

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