- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 15:47:04 +0100
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
Given all that, can we instead focus on the purpose of publishing and
talk about it being published for community review?
"""
This document identifies problems with SPARQL EXISTS and describes two
proposals suggested by members of the . The document is published for
review by the community.
"""
Andy
On 30/04/2019 05:15, James Anderson wrote:
> good morning;
>
>> On 2019-04-29, at 14:26:34, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> 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.
>> “""
>
> while nothing has been accepted by the cg, they have most definitely received review from its members.
> were the word “independent” to be replaced with something like “conclusive”, the sentence could make sense.
> one could even characterise the situation by using “adequate”.
> as the sentence stands, it is not clear how “independent review from within the cg” differs from what has happened.
>
> best regards, from berlin,
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2019 14:47:29 UTC