Subject: CAP by Minneapolis

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:16:51 -0500

I think from all the notes flying by that we seem to have resolved the 
topic of SQL statements. Correct? Do I hear that we have what we need to 
make the CAP draft reflect what everyone agreed upon?  George/Editors, do 
you have enough text to do this?  The reason I am asking this is we have a 
charter date to go for last call by March.  AT the rate the notes are 
going, we won't make that.  I see lots of dialog going back and forth 
between what constitutes two factions.  I don't see much else from anyone 
else.  I also don't see much in the way of concensus except on SQL text. 
Everyone agree?  What I do see are questions going back and forth.  For 
all of you who are actively participating - and participation is goodness! 
- what we need to see is proposals.  If you state that something is wrong 
- your comment should include a "here's what's right" statement or text to 
that effect.  Questions going back and forth don't result in a written 
draft. They just cause more questions.  Also, may I make a suggestion that 
the notes be a bit smaller.  Instead of burying ALL the text in a note, do 
some judicious "snipping" and make it easier on the rest of us.  This may 
be one reason we are not getting anyone else to respond.  They probably 
are too tired from all the reading.  ;-)

Ok, that's my bandbox for now.  I like seeing all the activity - however, 
I'd like to see it from some other names (meaning other organizations).  5 
people from the same group does not mean 5 different groups.  If I am to 
try to call concensus on anything I need to read "noise" that sounds like 
it. 

Again, thanks for the efforts of everyone.

And for the rest of you, are you there? Is anyone listening? ....;-)
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:49:40 -0500

>I think from all the notes flying by that we seem to have resolved the 
topic of SQL statements. Correct?

Im not sure we do.  I for one have been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of 
the threads in the last 2 weeks.  Perhaps it would help if the combatants, 
err, posters could summarize whats still standing now that the dust is 
settled.

> I also don't see much in the way of concensus except on SQL text. 

This is definitely NOT a concensus on SQL or SQL-like! 

As Ive noted at least 2 times in the past couple of weeks the WG _never_ 
agreed to use SQL as the query lingua.  Search for my more recent postings 
or to a full text index of the archives.  Perhaps some folks think we will 
change our minds after 2 years (see the 3 1999 WG minutes previously 
cited) if they perisist on claiming so...

Bruce
===========================================================================
New unit designation follows:
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked] 
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...