Re: where are we at?

One purpose of a Community Group is to create a “Final Report” that can be used to hand off to a future Working Group [1]  JSON-LD faced this same scenario when there was a lot of community support for improving the 1.0 specs, which did lead a proposed charter [2] and ultimate formation of the JSON-LD 1.1 Working Group. (Of course, we thought we had finished everything in the CG, but two years later we finally completed the updated Recs.) \

The Final Reports took the form of CG drafts of the specs with some change marking from the 1.0 spec.

This group could either create edited versions of the SPARQL 1.1 recs, or it might be better to create stand-alone documents that are updates to those recs, and leave combining them for a SPARQL 1.2 (2.0?) WG.

Before spending too much time on formalities, it might be good to see if there is general interest to charter a new WG. Of course, a CG spec is useful too, but doesn’t carry near the weight of a recommendation.

As for tests, I think along with creating normative text, we can add tests to the test suite curated on GitHub [3], as long as we use a status such as `dawgt:approval dawgt:Proposed;` and, ideally reference the appropriate text from a comment.

Meetings are good, as long as there are more than a couple of people committed to regularly contributing, along with implementors willing to do the work.

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

[1] https://www.w3.org/community/json-ld/ <https://www.w3.org/community/json-ld/>
[2] https://www.w3.org/2018/03/jsonld-wg-charter.html <https://www.w3.org/2018/03/jsonld-wg-charter.html>
[3] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/tree/gh-pages/sparql11

> On Aug 3, 2020, at 1:53 PM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Good question!
> 
> There are a lot of good suggestions, many with consensus on an approach. The suggestion for moving forward is SEP's [1] to move those from discussion to design documents. Is there a different way to proceed, instead or or as well as?
> 
> Of course, everyone is busy.
> 
> Maybe we need to have meetings  in order to bring what time people can find to focus on a one/a few items at a time.
> 
>    Andy
> 
> [1]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sparql-12/2019Oct/0000.html
> 
> On 30/07/2020 23:56, Jeen Broekstra wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> I was just wondering where we are at as a community group, at the moment, and how we intend to proceed. We seem to have a fairly solid collection of proposals for improvements and extensions, and a lot of input from different stakeholders, which is great!
>> I realize the purpose of this group is not to come up with a new standard but rather to facilitate discussion and gather requirements, but nevertheless I was wondering where we take it from here: are we in a position where we start consolidating proposals, and perhaps even put out some recommendations for implementors to follow? If so, is there a particular way I can help move that forward (of course, I have biases on which items I find more important, so I'm asking at least partly out of self-interest :)).
>> Cheers,
>> Jeen
>