W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-star@w3.org > May 2021

Re: Moving to standard track?

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 10:36:33 +0100
To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
Message-ID: <47507055-e742-8e1b-014b-cba08cbdb763@apache.org>


On 05/05/2021 19:51, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On May 5, 2021, at 12:47 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> TL;DR: I propose we discuss the move to standard track during our next call (Friday 2021-05-07, 3pm UTC)

Good plan.

>>
>> I had a discussion on Monday with Ivan Herman and a number of other people from the W3C team. I told them that my goal was to wait until we polish the CG report and get more implementation reports to initiate the chartering process. The encouraged me, instead, to not wait and start right now. Their arguments were the following:
>>
>> * the process of drafting a charter, getting it approved by W3C, and starting the working group, can be long; so we'd better start it now, and continue our CG work in parallel;
>>
>> * the charter will of course cite our CG report as an input for the future WG; waiting for that report to be more mature may give the impression that we expect the WG to merely rubber stamp the work that we have done, and this is not what WGs are for (and thus, giving this impression may antagonize some W3C members).
>>
>> A consequence of the latter point, which Ivan and others emphasized, is that we must be prepared to accept that the WG make some changes (possibly significant ones) to our spec. That is, of course, if the participants of the WG think it is the best way to go. If we are not ready for that, we should probably stop at the CG-report.
> 
> A draft charter to update RDF, should also consider things like text direction as addressed in the JSON-LD WG. I hope it would be in-scope to consider adding semantics to Named Graphs, too, so that the name of a graph used elsewhere in the document would have some normative relationship to the graph it names.

I don't think coupling to a general RDF working group is the best way to 
proceed. There is a difference of timescales.

The RDF-star work has an initial report, test suite, and this 
community's discussions. It can move on a relatively short (for a WG) 
timescale.

Other matters - all of which are good - are not at he same stage and 
need input material, or to run on a longer-timescale so that wider, 
in-depth discussions can happen and become proposals.

     Andy

> 
> Gregg
> 
>> I propose we discuss this during our next call. I'll send the agenda soon.
>>
>>    pa
>>
>> <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2021 09:36:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 6 May 2021 09:36:49 UTC