- From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:12:22 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Interesting you say this. The Advisory Board has been discussing this for a while, and noting our very patchy approach to collecting and documenting errata, and the clear need to do better and be more consistent. It should be easy a) to report a problem b) to see all reported problems that the WG agrees are errata c) to see all problems the WG has not yet categorized or addressed > On Jun 24, 2016, at 1:31 , Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > W3C recommendations have problems. Unfortunately fixing these problems is > very problematic. I suggest that W3C community groups be able, and > encouraged, to submit reports pointing out problems in relevant W3C > recommendations and providing errata for these problems. These reports would > then be reviewed and, if approved, made into normative errata for the > recommendation. > > This process should be restricted to cases where there is a clear problem in > the recommendation, i.e., either there is some formal error, such as illegal > structures being created or functions applied outside of their domain, or > multiple implementations differ from the recommendation. Part of the review > process would be to ensure that there was adequate involvement of interested > parties, particularly implementors of the recommendation and members of the > working group that produced the recommendation. > > > Why is this a good time to establish this new process? The W3C Data Shapes > working group is building SHACL on top of SPARQL. Parts of SPARQL that it > heavily uses have problems. It would be much better if a resultant > recommendation for SHACL could normatively depend on SPARQL as modified by the > fixes that have been approved by W3C instead of saying that SHACL depends on > SPARQL with some set of changes, which would in essence fork the definition of > SPARQL within W3C. The RDF Tests Suite Curation Community Group would be a > good group to handle errata for SPARQL, although it would also be possible to > set up a new group specifically to address problems that are currently known > in the SPARQL recommendations. > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Dave Singer singer@mac.com
Received on Friday, 24 June 2016 08:13:33 UTC