Re: Task force on Credibility Data Access (APIs, Protocols, Formats, Schemas)

Yes, please.   No idea why Doodle doesn't make this an option.

       -- Sandro

On 1/29/20 12:04 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> Should we ignore the June part again, and just think about it as a generic week??
>
> Leonard
>
> On 1/29/20, 11:54 AM, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>
>      I'm thinking it makes sense to have a separate series of meetings to
>      talk about the mechanics of passing around credibility data. So, here we
>      can talk about JSON vs RDFa vs JSON-LD vs SPARQL vs SHACL, etc, and the
>      details of an RDF schema and maybe graph shapes that reflect the signal
>      definitions approved by the main group.
>      
>      If you know something about this stuff (complete expertise not
>      required!) and you'd be willing to help with this, please fill out this
>      scheduling poll.  If you already filled out the main poll last week,
>      just tell me, and I can use that data.
>      
>      https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoodle.com%2Fpoll%2Fybaeerm52g84ekma&amp;data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cebc6e2cd201c47c7b82c08d7a4dbdfc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637159136566841408&amp;sdata=Wl79%2BFYviT167HgTSdWSn5wPgH%2BvE%2BY3UF4Wfc8arwY%3D&amp;reserved=0
>      
>      I'm thinking we can do it every week for a few weeks -- hoping it wont
>      take that many meetings before we have a reasonable draft and can take a
>      break.
>      
>      Thanks!
>      
>             -- Sandro
>      
>      
>      
>

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2020 17:13:03 UTC