Re: Wrapping up.

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