RE: Hydra Status

On 15 Nov 2016 at 23:28, Graham Conzett wrote:
> After this discussion I'm even less clear on who the intended audience
> is for Hydra is. Only people who are primarily focused on RDF?

We want to build something which is usable by everyone.. also people without RDF background. But people working on the design of Hydra itself need to be familiar with (or willing to learn the basics of) RDF and other technologies Hydra is based on. Otherwise experience has shown that constructive discussions are very difficult.

This doesn't mean people without background in those technologies and without time to learn them can't participate. We will need input, use cases, feedback etc. People without RDF background are crucial to ensure we built something approachable to everyone and eventually document it in an accessible manner.

Thoughts? Opinions? Objections anyone?


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler



 
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:
>>> What I think we are sorely missing at the moment, is a group of *dedicated and
> committed* core contributors that push the development of Hydra forward.
>> 
>> Count me in!
>> 
>> Also, we'll need a clear driving force IMHO,
>> a committee of 1–3 people coordinating everything.
>> 
>>> We can also revisit Hydra's overall architecture but I'm a bit skeptical about such an
> effort if we can't reach consensus on something as fundamental as collections.
>> 
>> That is precisely why we should revisit it.
>> 
>> Ruben

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2016 20:13:21 UTC