- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:05:13 -0700
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Cc: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
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