- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:44:53 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phil.archer@gs1.org>, RDF Dataset Canonicalization and Hash Working Group <public-rch-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 9:14 AM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > So we would probably have a separate part of the report which refers to various real-life applications using RDFC. Agreed. > It may be a disservice for us if the only applications that would appear on our report were DI implementations. By all means, we should include any real world usage of RDFC. > Bottom line: if the only source of implementation/usage reports is from the DI community, it may be wiser not to do it at all imho. Err, that doesn't make sense to me. It feels like that's saying: "Let's ignore the largest implementation community that's using RDF-CANON." I see no benefit in us ignoring or not reporting on implementations and usage. RDFC was initially created for the DI use cases, so demonstrating that it has adoption there is useful. It's also generally useful beyond DI, and we should report on if that's already happening (or it might be too early). IIRC, there were a few Linked Data database vendors that were looking into RDFC. -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2024 14:45:36 UTC