Re: major revision of LDP draft charter

On Mar 18, 2012, at 18:29 , ashok malhotra wrote:

> That's a good comment, Dan!
> I had the opposite reaction re. the timing.  Why do we have to wait till
> June to get start?  Why can't we start next month? :-)

We may be able to squeeze it to May 15 and, if it works, then fine. But the official W3C AC review is at the minimum 4 weeks to start with:-(

Ivan


> 
> Re. the technical issues, the charter makes it clear that these are some
> possible issues and others may come up when the WG starts and some
> may get dropped.  Nevertheless, I had a couple of comments on the issues:
> 
> 1. RDF types supported -- don't we need to support all the RDF types?
> I would remove this issue.
> 2. Re. syntax, I think this is orthogonal to our concerns.
> 6. Concurrency depends on the type of storage and other concerns
> So, I would remove the issue and add it to the para above that
> discusses authorization and authentication.
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> On 3/18/2012 10:18 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2012, at 13:10, Eric Prud'hommeaux<eric@w3.org>  wrote:
>> 
>>> * Dan Brickley<danbri@danbri.org>  [2012-03-18 12:46-0400]
>>>> Quick iphone reply for now. Basically "what's the hurry?". The whole thing seems to be based on a magazine article that is rumoured to be a potential Submission to W3C. How did we jump from that to a proposed group already?
>>>> 
>>>> Apologies if I've missed more context,
>>> The bulk of the context is the LEDP workshop
>>>  <http://www.w3.org/2011/09/LinkedData/>
>>> at which the ~45 participants said they wanted a WG and some wanted to
>>> help with the Submission which IBM was working on. We promised to
>>> create a mailing list<mailto:public-ldp@w3.org>  where we would float
>>> a proposed charter.
>>> 
>>> The next natural step is to float that charter by the AC once we have
>>> a guage for how well it meets the community's needs.
>> Thanks! In that case role of the workshop, and details on consensus amongst its attendees, should be higher visibility in abstract/intro. Otherwise the motivation feels a bit weak.
>> 
>> 'This Group addresses a need identified by ... who agreed ... and asked W3C to ..."? Etc
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> Dan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 18 Mar 2012, at 12:13, Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> After various discussions, we've rewritten the Linked Data Platform
>>>>> (LDP) draft charter.  New version is here:
>>>>> 
>>>>>       http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter
>>>>> 
>>>>> The diff is linked from there, but only the last few paragraphs
>>>>> (standard charter stuff) are the similar enough for the diff to be
>>>>> useful.
>>>>> 
>>>>> At this point, we're expecting to formally propose this to the W3C
>>>>> membership within a week or two, so please review it soon.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  -- Sandro
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> -ericP
> 


----
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