Re: Wrapping up.

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