Re: Hydra CG & LDP NEXT CG - interest in coordination telecon?

On 11 October 2015 at 14:13, elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
wrote:

> Thanks Markus, I agree with all you comments!
>
> In Social Web WG I see need that we draw a clear distinction between
> vocabulary terms needed for describing particular data and vocabulary
> terms for describing API(s) for accessing this particular data over
> HTTP. I already see some IMO API specific terms creeping into AS2.0
> specs [1][2] and I believe that we better off with appreciating work
> already done in LDP and Hydra/LDF.
>

Agree, nice work!

Though I will add that at this point the WG deliverables are up to a year
behind schedule, and it's unclear what will be produced.  Progress has been
challenging with some members seeming not to understand the advantages of
awww or even name spaces at all.

AS2.0 as a vocab seems to be a pretty decent piece of work, tho.  The
Social Interest Group (IG) has a vocabulary task force.  So I wonder if
this might become more prominent.  Comparing the different vocabs seems
valuable, and perhaps it would be possible to snapshot microformats and put
it in the w3c namespace as another vocab.

A report on vocabs is an IG deliverable so perhaps this work could be taken
forward there.


>
> I start taking notes on commonalities and differences between LDP and
> Hydra on this wiki page:
>
> https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-APIs-Brainstorming/wiki/LDP,-Hydra,-LDF
>
> I put it there from the lack of other obvious place, everyone please
> feel warmly invited to contribute or propose different location for such
> comparison resource!
>
> Cheers :)
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/
>
> On 10/08/2015 05:30 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > On 8 Okt 2015 at 08:38, elf Pavlik wrote:
> >> On 10/07/2015 11:44 PM, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> >>>> If enough people expresses interest, I would happily help with
> arranging
> >>>> a telecon!
> >>>
> >>> I do think people are open to cross-WG collaboration, I'm just not
> >>> sure telecon is the most attractive way to do it. :-)
> >
> > +1, I think at this stage async communication will be more effective.
> >
> >
> >> Makes sense! I just thought about an exceptional one just to take 1 hour
> >> to understand better similarities and differences.
> >
> > I think the main question would be in what ways LDP Next will differ
> from the current version of LDP. What's up for discussion and what isn't.
> >
> >
> >> 1) I will confirm if one can send emails to both groups, while
> >> officially having joined only one
> >
> > That should work fine.
> >
> >
> >> 2) I would like to invite everyone who
> >> uses IRC to consider joining irc://irc.w3.org:6665/social (i don't see
> >> anyone using irc://irc.w3.org:6665/hydra) 3) I will document this topic
> >> better in this issue on github
> >> https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/36
> >
> > Thanks. Please also keep the mailing list informed from time to time.
> >
> >
> >> I agree that both communities may need more time to understand each
> >> others work. At the same time I find it very different to hear (or even
> >> see each other) during a telecon, even better meet IRL, comparing to
> >> just read messages - IMO it can potentially strengthen the C in CG :)
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > In my experience, spending an hour in a telecom or meeting isn't very
> efficient if it isn't properly prepared. So let's first do our homework on
> the mailing list before we commit time to communicate in realtime :-)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Markus Lanthaler
> > @markuslanthaler
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>