Re: a plea for parsimony

Hi Peter, All,

First of all thank you for joining the CG.

The way I see it at this time we want to have a full virtual shopping 
card of wishes, only later on will we see how for our implementation 
credit card will go in what can actually be realized.

In other words let your inner toddler out and scream want, want, want.
And in time when we have all calmed down we will see that we will eat 
healthy spinach after all and that one toy is sufficient

This is day 5 of this CG so don't worry to much about where we will be 
in six months or a year with output.

We will find that some issues are so badly described we don't even know
what they are about and these will be closed by us as a community, 
others might become independent W3C member submissions and others for a 
WG to think about, and lots of things in between. Critically I want to 
encourage a community of collaboration and I rather get a "bad" issue 
that we need to fix and improve than have an empty list because we are 
turning people away.

Otherwise this is a great comment to add to the issue
https://github.com/w3c/sparql-12/issues/1

Which I rephrased to my understanding

SPARQL 1.2 should be a set of formally described and implemented 
features extending and correcting SPARQL 1.1.

Are you ok with me adding it like this? If not please add your own
text.

Regards,
Jerven

PS. I had to look up parsimony in the dictionary and the Oxford one is 
less kind than Merriam-Webster. We are very willing to do the work, not 
suffering from an "extreme unwillingness".

PPS. Speaking of toddlers I need to go fetch mine from day care.


On 4/3/19 3:02 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.
> 
> peter
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2019 14:52:56 UTC