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

Re: Moving to standard track?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 14:21:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=71QX7xZOtcHdQej0d23XtPioB0PH2zoXwz3F_XT5TCqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Cc: public-rdf-star@w3.org
On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 10:37, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>
+1

RDF-star is clearly a significant phenomena in this space, and has a
refreshing level of engagement with implementors. Whether it (or something
very like it) is the future of RDF is another thing. Getting a WG to tidy
up and bless it as-is will be 1,000,000 times easier if it is its own
thing, rather than carrying the larger burden of being "the next version of
RDF".

Dan
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2021 13:23:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 6 May 2021 13:23:26 UTC