where json-ld is discussed, was Re: review of json-ld-syntax

I haven't had time to look at the substance of the response, although 
the git tracker notified me about one thing, on which I posted a 
response: 
https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/224#issuecomment-14649119

The github tracker is certainly nice, but, yeah, we need to involve the 
WG, too.

I'd say things need to be moved to RDF-WG space before we go to LC.   
For myself, I'm okay with the JSON-LD group getting to its own LC first 
-- which it said it was before my review, but then @reverse looks like 
an LC2 for them essentially.

I'm also fine with them moving it all to RDF-WG space now, but I'd hate 
to be giving anyone lots of extra work for little benefit, so maybe it 
makes sense to wait until they're a little more settled.

I guess the big question is where LC comments will be tracked. W3C 
tracker is horrible for that.  W3C lc-tracker is okay.  Maybe we can 
figure out a way to use git for that that's acceptable for W3C.    
(Like, is there at least a data-export function?)

        -- Sandro



On 03/08/2013 03:59 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 08/03/13 20:22, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>>> On 08/03/13 18:19, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>>> Most of your feedback has been addressed. The rest needs to be
>>> further
>>>> discussed. I also posted a number of proposal to the issue on GitHub
>>> [1].
>>>> Feel free to comment there.
>>>
>>> Last Call is a important step in the process where the technical works
>>> ends and community feedback is important. This is a working group
>>> review and we want to maximise WG member engagement.
>>
>> Sure. But you take this a bit out of context. This was part of a mail 
>> were I
>> reported how two specific comments have been addressed. There was 
>> another
>> long mail I sent out last night explaining all the other changes I 
>> made and
>> a mail extracting the things that haven't been addressed yet and that 
>> need
>> to be further discussed.
>
> I think that email was the way to go but when you say you've gone back 
> to using github and asked for comments there.  I felt that we need to 
> be clear as to the process we are following, and not have two.
>
> Please look at this from outside:
>
> [[
> There's one feature missing from the current syntax spec, @reverse. I'll
> notify you when I've added that section so that you can review that 
> part as
> well.
> ]]
>
> Normalization - issue 1
> "The algorithm below is obsolete."
>
> does make it very hard for someone to find out what is going on and to 
> put the pieces together.
>
>> I'm fine with that. Even though I find W3C's issue tracker much less 
>> usable
>> than GitHub's.
>
> I agree on usability but that's not the point here.
>
>> Thanks for bringing this up. Better to sort these things out now 
>> rather than
>> later.
>
> We'll get there.
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Markus
>
>
>     Andy
>
>

Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 23:47:04 UTC