Re: Linked Data Platform Working Group Charter comment

I have updated the _DRAFT_ :-) charter, essentially using Ashok's text. I also removed the explicit out of scope mention of ACL, I guess Ashok's text covers it.

Ivan


On Jan 31, 2012, at 18:23 , <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com> wrote:

> I am fine with a layered/phased approach, but I don't want the access control issue to drop off our radar screen. That's why I like the (minimal) idea of at least defining some requirements.
> 
> - Ora
> 
> 
> From: ext Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:13:44 -0800
> To: <public-ldp@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Linked Data Platform Working Group Charter comment
> Resent-From: <public-ldp@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:15:52 +0000
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> First, let me say, in case you've beenwondering why IBM was silent, that I apparently screwed up my initial subscription to the list and had missed the beginning of the discussion. Now that I'm on, you can expect more participation from me.
> 
> In general, when it comes to the charter, what I'd like is for us to agree that we need to adopt a multi step approach in which we don't try to address all the problems we think are important at once. There are too many examples of WGs that tried to tackle too much at once and as a result go on for years without producing any recommendations.
> 
> To avoid this I'd like to propose that we adopt a very pragmatic attitude in which we give ourselves a timeframe to work with and limit the scope of the spec to what can be agreed upon during that timeframe rather than drag things on to cover more. We should take the approach of defining different levels, or profiles, that build on each other, similar to what we did with the DOM or WS profiles, so that we can produce smaller specs we can take advantage of sooner rather than later.
> 
> I'd like the charter to say that we aim at developing a first spec that defines some foundational mechanisms we can all agree on without pretending to solve everything, and that the charter defines what we think is relevant but does not imply that everything will be addressed in the first recommendation.
> 
> With that in mind I'm fine with Ashok's proposal, I certainly wouldn't agree on making this is a must have for the first spec.
> 
> Best regards.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> To:        Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> Cc:        public-ldp@w3.org
> Date:        01/31/2012 08:13 AM
> Subject:        Re: Linked Data Platform Working Group Charter comment
> 
> 
> 
> I did some wordsmithing ...
> 
> [[[
> The WG will not normatively specify solutions for access control and authentication. However the WG should identify, based on a set of real world use cases, requirements for necessary authentication and authorisation technologies.
> ]]]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> On 1/31/2012 7:50 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> > [[[
> > The WG does not normatively specify solutions for access control, however should identify, based on a set of (real world) use cases,  requirements for necessary authentication and authorisation technologies.
> > ]]]
> >
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf