- From: Ruben Verborgh (UGent-imec) <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 22:48:30 +0000
- To: Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>
- CC: "Miel Vander Sande (UGent-imec)" <Miel.VanderSande@UGent.be>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Hi all, First of all, a reminder that the Hydra Core Vocabulary and Linked Data Fragments are both part of Hydra according to the website: http://www.hydra-cg.com/ > As for the relation between Hydra and TPD/LDF, personally I think that too close relation is not healthy. Indeed. There was never a call for a close relationship between Hydra Core (as we called it back then) and LDF. However, what we _did_ decide, since LDF components were going to strongly depend on Hydra, is that we would standardize LDF/TPF within the Hydra group. So this is also a reminder that the Hydra group has chosen to serve as a vehicle for LDF standardization as well, in addition to Hydra Core. Note that the LDF and TPF specifications are in the Hydra repository and on the Hydra website and namespace. So whereas LDF issues are not in scope of Hydra Core, they are in scope of Hydra. As such, I would strongly request not to close LDF issues (and they are all tagged with LDF). If we want LDF out of the Hydra group (which I am fine with), we should have that discussion first. But at the moment, LDF is within Hydra, and the LDF issues are Hydra issues (but not Hydra Core issues). > Being tech-agnostic, Hydra should only serve as basis for more specialized tools, defining common ground for various applications. I think it’s very important to distinguish between Hydra and Hydra Core, as we did in the past. Best, Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2019 22:48:55 UTC