Re: Welcome!

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.

ReSpec hacking shouldn’t be necessary, simply setting the specStatus appropriately, (CG-DRAFT or CG-FINAL) should do. If that doesn’t make it distinct enough, ReSpec should handle it. See https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/specStatus.

Gregg

> 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 16:05:46 UTC