- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:24:06 +0100
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
Is this text acceptable? """ This document identifies problems with SPARQL EXISTS and describes two proposals suggested by members of the CG. """ Andy On 29/04/2019 12:29, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > And I am also of the opinion that the proposals do not need independent review > for the CG to publish the document. I don't view this as anywhere near the > best course of action, but it appears that there is not going to be anyone in > the CG or elsewhere who will perform this independent review. > > However, if the document is going to be published without any independent > review of the proposals then my stance is that the document needs to so state. > I hold this stance even though I produced one of the proposals. > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Samsung Research America > > > On 4/29/19 7:10 AM, James Anderson wrote: >> good afternoon; >> >> in case the intent of my message was not clear, it was intended to speak to whether the proposals need independent review before they should be published in their present form. >> in case the content was not clear, the position is, no, they do not need independent review in order to be published at the present stage in their present form. >> >> best regards, from berlin, >> >>> On 2019-04-29, at 13:04:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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 12:24:31 UTC