Re: Wrapping up.

It would be published with the words "Draft Community Group Report" as 
the subtitle.  This are put in by respec. (The choices are CG-DRAFT and 
CG-FINAL.)

Would adding in the SOTD "This is a draft report." be satisfactory? The 
rest of the SOTD is non-optional boiler plate inserted by respec.

     Andy

On 18/04/2019 14:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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 13:17:06 UTC