- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 08:37:51 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
I realize that the bar for CG publication is much lower than for W3C recommendations. However, there should be some standards that a final CG publication should meet and I believe that this includes at least some independent review of major proposals, at least from inside the CG. I believe that this bar has not been met and I am against publication of the current draft without some sort of disclaimer. peter PS: Of course I would be very much more in favour of having some review of the two proposals. On 4/17/19 5:50 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 17/04/2019 10:32, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> >> On 16/04/2019 16:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> [It looks like I am no longer a member of the group and not receiving emails >>> so this response is not linked to the initial message.] >>> >>> If the draft is to be published there should be a disclaimer that the >>> proposals have not gone through independent review. >>> >>> peter >>> >> >> The publication would just be descriptions. No mention of independent review. >> >> """ >> This document identifies problems with SPARQL EXISTS and describes two >> proposals. >> """ > > A CG report does not go through a Working Draft process like a WG REC does, if > that is your concern. > >> >> Andy >
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2019 12:38:21 UTC