W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > March 2012

Re: major revision of LDP draft charter

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:29:04 -0700
Message-ID: <4F661B60.2070409@oracle.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>, W3CSW CG Group <w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org>
That's a good comment, Dan!
I had the opposite reaction re. the timing.  Why do we have to wait till
June to get start?  Why can't we start next month? :-)

Re. the technical issues, the charter makes it clear that these are some
possible issues and others may come up when the WG starts and some
may get dropped.  Nevertheless, I had a couple of comments on the issues:

1. RDF types supported -- don't we need to support all the RDF types?
I would remove this issue.
2. Re. syntax, I think this is orthogonal to our concerns.
6. Concurrency depends on the type of storage and other concerns
So, I would remove the issue and add it to the para above that
discusses authorization and authentication.
All the best, Ashok

On 3/18/2012 10:18 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2012, at 13:10, Eric Prud'hommeaux<eric@w3.org>  wrote:
>
>> * Dan Brickley<danbri@danbri.org>  [2012-03-18 12:46-0400]
>>> Quick iphone reply for now. Basically "what's the hurry?". The whole thing seems to be based on a magazine article that is rumoured to be a potential Submission to W3C. How did we jump from that to a proposed group already?
>>>
>>> Apologies if I've missed more context,
>> The bulk of the context is the LEDP workshop
>>   <http://www.w3.org/2011/09/LinkedData/>
>> at which the ~45 participants said they wanted a WG and some wanted to
>> help with the Submission which IBM was working on. We promised to
>> create a mailing list<mailto:public-ldp@w3.org>  where we would float
>> a proposed charter.
>>
>> The next natural step is to float that charter by the AC once we have
>> a guage for how well it meets the community's needs.
> Thanks! In that case role of the workshop, and details on consensus amongst its attendees, should be higher visibility in abstract/intro. Otherwise the motivation feels a bit weak.
>
> 'This Group addresses a need identified by ... who agreed ... and asked W3C to ..."? Etc
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Mar 2012, at 12:13, Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> After various discussions, we've rewritten the Linked Data Platform
>>>> (LDP) draft charter.  New version is here:
>>>>
>>>>        http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter
>>>>
>>>> The diff is linked from there, but only the last few paragraphs
>>>> (standard charter stuff) are the similar enough for the diff to be
>>>> useful.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, we're expecting to formally propose this to the W3C
>>>> membership within a week or two, so please review it soon.
>>>>
>>>>   -- Sandro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> -- 
>> -ericP
Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 17:28:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 18 March 2012 17:28:25 GMT