Question: Should we label parquet-mr or any other parquet implementations "reference" implications"?
This came up as part of Vinoo's great PR to list different parquet reference implementations[1][2]. The term "reference implementation" often has an official connotation. For example the wikipedia definition is "a program that implements all requirements from a corresponding specification. The reference implementation ... should be considered the "correct" behavior of any other implementation of it."[3] Given the close association of parquet-mr to the parquet standard, it is a natural candidate to label as "reference implementation." However, it is not clear to me if there is consensus that it should be thusly labeled. I have a strong opinion that a consensus on this question would be very helpful. I don't actually have a strong opinion about the answer Andrew [1]: https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/53#discussion_r1582882267 [2]: https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/53#discussion_r1598283465 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_implementation
