- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:04:14 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
I do not believe that James's message speaks at all to whether the proposals have received independent review, so no. peter On 4/29/19 6:38 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > Peter - with james's clarification, are we good now to publish the doc as the > current state? > > Andy > > On 18/04/2019 22:54, James Anderson wrote: >> good evening; >> >>> On 2019-04-18, at 15:24:20, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Going back through the CG mailing archives again, I noticed that james >>> anderson <james@dydra.com> did send in some comments on one specific aspect of >>> the deep binding proposal, so that does count as independent review of part of >>> this proposal. >>> >>> Most of his comments, however, are general comments on the basic specification >>> of SPARQL and these comments are pretty much uniformly negative, and, in some >>> cases, quite scathing, so I don't think that he can be considered to approve >>> of either of the proposals, at least based on his email messages to the CG. >> >> as i tried to express in my latest previous mail, whether or not i approve >> of the proposals changes nothing as to whether the document is an accurate >> record of the current state of the community group’s work. >> as i tried to express in my latest previous mail, the only thing which will >> eventually matter is that there be adequate implementations respective >> adequate tests to demonstrate the efficacy and sufficiency of any given >> proposal - whether one of those described in that document or any other. >> the time for that work has not yet arrived. >> >> best regards, from berlin >> >>> >>> 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 Monday, 29 April 2019 11:04:40 UTC