Re: Moving to standard track?

On 5/6/21 9:21 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 10:37, Andy Seaborne <
> <>> wrote:
>     On 05/05/2021 19:51, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>     >> On May 5, 2021, at 12:47 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin
>     <
>     <>> 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


RDF-Star is its own thing.

It isn't the next version of RDF.


Kingsley Idehen       
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   
Home Page:
Community Support:
Weblogs (Blogs):
Company Blog:
Virtuoso Blog:
Data Access Drivers Blog:

Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
Medium Blog:
Legacy Blogs:

Profile Pages:

Web Identities (WebID):

Received on Thursday, 6 May 2021 21:08:45 UTC