- From: Miel Vander Sande (UGent-imec) <Miel.VanderSande@UGent.be>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 08:36:35 +0000
- To: "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <FBA7D03D-F48B-48CB-9EDD-21BD418D52DD@ugent.be>
Hi Karol, all, Our group has put the LDF and TPF specifications under the wings of Hydra some time ago, with the motivation that, at the time, LDF/TPF were the first applications or use cases of the Hydra vocabulary. This had the benefit that some (practical) issues in Hydra, e.g., the unclear semantics of hydra:search, got noticed and all specifications could push each other forward. When the activity in the CG declined, probably so has the relationship between both specifications and it seems the presence of LDF/TPF has become unclear. Now, with new leadership and momentum, it might be a good time to reassess the position of LDF/TPF in the Hydra CG. LDF issues becoming obsolete or ‘out-of-scope’ caught our attention and, while we definitely understand the reasons for separating scopes (I guess at least the github issues could be split), we better discuss first before we loose any important ties, documented issues or work. Unfortunately we missed the last telco, but I propose to put in on the agenda for next one to see how to best proceed. Would that be ok? Best regards, Miel Vander Sande Postdoctoral Researcher at IDLab, Ghent University, in collaboration with imec AA Tower | Technologiepark 19 9052 Ghent www.idlab.technology<http://www.idlab.technology> @Miel_vds
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2019 08:37:01 UTC