Re: Improving EXISTS

Thank you everyone for the responses.

I've started the Community Group creation process.  Please show your 
support at

     https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/

The next step is to wait for 5 people to support the creation of the CG, 
then W3C will create the infrastructure and we can begin.

Once the creation process has happens, there are some suggestions from W3C:

W3C page: "How do we get started in a new Community or Business Group?"
https://www.w3.org/community/about/faq/#how-do-we-get-started-in-a-new-group

W3C page "Good practice for running a group":
https://www.w3.org/community/about/good-practice-for-running-a-group/

 Andy

On 30/06/16 12:40, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> There are bugs in the SPARQL specification with regards to EXISTS. The
> RDF Data Shapes working group uses EXISTS, and other related mechanisms,
> in SHACL [1].
>
> W3C process for corrections is recognized generally to be inflexible. It
> is normally to wait for the next WG to run and end which is a multiyear
> cycle - that does not fit with the RDF Data Shapes WG timescale.
>
> Community Groups can publish reports. These are not W3C standards. They
> do provide a way to record consensus or enumerate alternatives. This
> could be used to supplement the SPARQL errata process [2].
>
> A suggestion is to use the W3C Community Group mechanism to describe a
> solution to this specific area in a timely manner. The CG would document
> a solution and create tests to pass over to the "RDF Tests" CG [3].  If
> there is no single consensus on one solution within the SPARQL
> community, including implementers and users, we can at least document a
> small set of approaches and note the approaches taken by implementations.
>
> Thoughts and comments?
>
> Please indicate if you would join such an effort.
>
>      Andy
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/sparql-errata
> [3] https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-tests/
>

Received on Friday, 1 July 2016 11:27:50 UTC