Re: the suggested initial goal [ Re: Welcome!

> On 2016-07-13, at 00:40, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/06/2016 07:09 AM, james anderson wrote:
>> good afternoon;
>> 
>>> On 2016-07-06, at 15:41, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org
>>> <mailto:andy@apache.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Peter,
>>> 
>>> Would you pleased resend your summary "Thu, 30 Jun 2016 06:05:27 -0700"?
>>> 
>>> That's a concrete list place we can use as a starting point for discussing
>>> the scope of the work.
>> 
>> it would help to have a list with the content indicated by this mock-up
>> 
>>    https://github.com/w3c/sparql-exists/wiki/Examples
>> 
>> to lay out the scope in concrete, neutral terms.
>> 
>> best regards, from berlin,
>> ---
>> james anderson | james@dydra.com <mailto:james@dydra.com> | http://dydra.com
>> 
>> 
> 
> I don't see why it would not be better to use a modification of the actual
> SPARQL tests format.  My understanding is that this format can be used to
> automatically generate a readable document, as was done to generate
> https://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/summary.html
> 
> If more information is needed for a particular test the generator could be
> modified to add that information, or the information could be put in a
> companion document.
> 
> I don't see why yet another format is needed.

the actual format does not matter, so long as it gets all the information into view.
the current test description does not do that at all and the current summary layout does it poorly, at best.
the former distributes the information over an arbitrary number of files and the latter generates a presentation which, while a reference record, is not a presentation which is suited to be read for comprehension.

best regards, from berlin,
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com