- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 17:08:19 -0400
- To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
- Message-ID: <167bcd79-63a7-f47e-30f6-f61e2d31518f@openlinksw.com>
On 5/6/21 9:21 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 10:37, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > +1 RDF-Star is its own thing. It isn't the next version of RDF. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com Weblogs (Blogs): Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers Personal Weblogs (Blogs): Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/ http://kidehen.blogspot.com Profile Pages: Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/ Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Web Identities (WebID): Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2021 21:08:45 UTC