- From: elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 05:22:18 +0100
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- CC: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 10/29/2015 11:34 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > Dear all, > >> I think Ruben was simply a bit too enthusiastic as we were finally able to solve an issue he raised more than half a year ago. > > Yes, blame my enthusiasm. Sorry, folks! > >> Our (and basically any standardization effort's) process is to first have a discussion. When there seems to be consensus the chair sends out a Call for Consensus to give people that didn't participate in the discussion that far a last chance to raise their objections before an official decision is being made. This process works quite well, so let's try to stick to it. If you have ideas on how to improve the process, please let me know. I'm always open to change things to the better. > > Thanks for spelling this out, I fully agree with this process. > My mistake was in a) thinking that the discussion had already happened > b) misinterpreting the purpose and sender of a Call for Consensus. > > Maybe something else that's relevant: as far as the "rushing" part is concerned: > I guess my fear is that, with several independent TPF implementations existing > based on an earlier version of the Hydra Core Vocabulary, > we would become limited in the changes we can still do. > I.e., in the future, if the TPF specification uses something that Core want to change, > it might be difficult because many different implementations already chose the old way. > For instance, the change from hydra:nextPage to hydra:next > will already involve getting 13 implementations to change, > the majority of which I do not control. > It's not hard to imagine that this might create pressure in the future > if TPF relies on features that have not been fully decided. > (Just a background note here—not an excuse for me going too fast.) Maybe people who implement software based on linked data vocabularies could make a habit of monitoring terms they rely on in their code and notify themselves when assertions using constructs like below appear * http://schema.org/supersededBy * owl:deprecated owl:DeprecatedClass owl:DeprecatedProperty hydra:next hydra:previous hydra:first hydra:last can also at some point converge with IANA link relations so maybe worth already having migration path in mind? https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/140
Received on Saturday, 31 October 2015 04:22:24 UTC