Re: Welcome!

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