- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:01:41 -0400
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
Indeed. WG drafts have a status section. If the draft CG document is published then it should have a status section and this status section should state that the proposals have not gone through any independent review, even within the CG. peter On 4/18/19 8:43 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > 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 13:02:13 UTC