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

Re: a plea for parsimony

From: Boris Pelakh <boris.pelakh@semanticarts.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 13:57:58 +0000
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "public-sparql-12@w3.org" <public-sparql-12@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN6PR1101MB2241413D28E931ADA4860350FB570@BN6PR1101MB2241.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
We are really in the brain-storming part of the process. We'll have plenty of opportunity to shoot ideas down, or put them on a back burner. Sometimes a person proposing a feature does not have the expertise to implement it, or even assess the feasibility of the implementation. DB vendors will weigh in on that aspect of the request, but we don't want to lose the ideas before they have been considered. Our primary gating criteria  right now should be 1) Is there a demonstrated need for this feature, and 2) does it fit well into the existing SPARQL paradigm.


From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 9:02:40 AM
To: public-sparql-12@w3.org
Subject: a plea for parsimony

Maybe this is too early in the process of the CG to discuss this, but I
already worry that there will be many, many cries for new features and not
enough analysis of the new features for suitability or implementability or
ease of use or ....

It is easy to propose a new feature.  What gating conditions is the CG going
to impose on what makes it into any report for a future WG?   I am in favour
of stringent gating conditions, even to the point of formal description and
actual implementation.

Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2019 13:58:59 UTC

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