- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:43:58 +0100
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
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