- From: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:24:26 +0200
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
good evening; the only bar which would matter would be to adopt the recommendation track requirement of some number of independent implementations and a ratified test suite. it makes little sense to go through that process prior to work on 1.2. it does make sense for the group to issue a record of what it thought the situation to be - even without unanimous agreement. best regards, from berlin, > On 2019-04-17, at 14:37:51, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 15:24:51 UTC