Re: Linked Data Platform Working Group Charter comment

Hi all,

First, let me say, in case you've been wondering why IBM was silent, that 
I apparently screwed up my initial subscription to the list and had missed 
the beginning of the discussion. Now that I'm on, you can expect more 
participation from me.

In general, when it comes to the charter, what I'd like is for us to agree 
that we need to adopt a multi step approach in which we don't try to 
address all the problems we think are important at once. There are too 
many examples of WGs that tried to tackle too much at once and as a result 
go on for years without producing any recommendations.

To avoid this I'd like to propose that we adopt a very pragmatic attitude 
in which we give ourselves a timeframe to work with and limit the scope of 
the spec to what can be agreed upon during that timeframe rather than drag 
things on to cover more. We should take the approach of defining different 
levels, or profiles, that build on each other, similar to what we did with 
the DOM or WS profiles, so that we can produce smaller specs we can take 
advantage of sooner rather than later.

I'd like the charter to say that we aim at developing a first spec that 
defines some foundational mechanisms we can all agree on without 
pretending to solve everything, and that the charter defines what we think 
is relevant but does not imply that everything will be addressed in the 
first recommendation.

With that in mind I'm fine with Ashok's proposal, I certainly wouldn't 
agree on making this is a must have for the first spec.

Best regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group




From:   ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
To:     Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc:     public-ldp@w3.org
Date:   01/31/2012 08:13 AM
Subject:        Re: Linked Data Platform Working Group Charter comment



I did some wordsmithing ...

[[[
The WG will not normatively specify solutions for access control and 
authentication. However the WG should identify, based on a set of real 
world use cases, requirements for necessary authentication and 
authorisation technologies.
]]]




All the best, Ashok

On 1/31/2012 7:50 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> [[[
> The WG does not normatively specify solutions for access control, 
however should identify, based on a set of (real world) use cases, 
requirements for necessary authentication and authorisation technologies.
> ]]]
>