Re: Wrapping up.

The document should also reference the original published version of Proposal A.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider and David Martin.
EXISTStential Aspects of SPARQL.
Fifteenth International Semantic Web Conference, Kobe, Japan,
October 2016.
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1690

peter


On 4/29/19 8:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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 12:41:51 UTC