Re: Wrapping up.

Peter -

All the work done has been done in public; the CG has had time to 
provide input throughout the process, and has done so.

What is suggested is publishing what we have because publication 
provides a fixed copy people can refer to. I have not suggested this is 
final. Further reports can be published if that is the concern.

All "wrapping up" (the content) is to take the work, and create a fixed 
copy on the web. It is like a WG publishing working drafts.

     Andy

On 17/04/2019 16:24, James Anderson wrote:
> 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 Thursday, 18 April 2019 12:44:26 UTC