Re: Wrapping up.

That is not adequate wording for me.   I want clear indication that these
proposals are the result of two members of the CG and that there is no
evidence that either of them have been comprehensively examined by anyone
other than the proposer of the other proposal.

peter


On 4/18/19 9:16 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 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 13:27:21 UTC