Re: Moving to standard track?

+1 because of the arguments above (although I hope that not every RDF1.2
eligible feature becomes a separate spec)
BTW, I think graph naming can, and probably will have to be, addressed by
the N3 community group.

Op do 6 mei 2021 om 15:32 schreef Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>:

>
>
> 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
>
>