- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:55:04 +0100
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
On 05/07/16 22:55, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > On 07/05/2016 02:38 PM, Gregory Williams wrote: >> >>> On Jul 5, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] >>> >>> Are we going to start out with some meta-discussions? I was wondering whether >>> there should be one note or several. >> >> My opinion would be that a single note to cover the exists issues and proposed fix would be appropriate. > > I'm fine with that. I wonder whether the CG can produce interim versions of a > report. Agreed - this shouldn't be a huge endeavour so what ever best serves the different reader categories. We don't need to decide yet. I can imagine a section on the suggestions, written for SPARQL users (i.e. the one thing they need to read), a section on more detail of the problems and a section on the detail of the proposals. What might be useful separately is implementation reports because that can be a live document. The CG can produce drafts and final documents. The main rule seems to be "must not use a style that will cause them to be confused with W3C Technical Reports." A bit of ReSpec hacking needed. And also we have GH pages which land at: https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists and direct links into the GH repo itself. Andy
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2016 13:55:37 UTC