- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:26:34 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@topquadrant.com>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
It does not say anything about independent review, so no. I would be fine with """ This document identifies problems with SPARQL EXISTS and describes two proposals suggested by members of the CG. Neither have received independent review from within the CG. """ peter On 4/29/19 8:24 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > 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 12:26:59 UTC