Re: Proposal: continuing with 2+ alternative drafts in parallel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/24/2014 11:11 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> Hello Social WG Crew,
> 
> First of all I would like to express my appreciation to everyone 
> participating in yesterday meeting[1]. Pretty long one and
> possibly frustrating for many of us. While I don't see us moving
> forward there directly on things we plan to deliver. It gave us, in
> my opinion, very good opportunity to get to know each other better
> and understand all the various opinions present.
> 
> I worry that instead of engaging in constructive work we might
> struggle with wasting our energies on *proving the other wrong*. I
> also wouldn't like that anyone ends up working on something one
> doesn't truly agree on. To address those concerns I would like to
> propose:
> 
> *We continue our work with focus on 2 or more alternative drafts
> where we all can capture designs we truly support*

The question is not whether someone *likes* a draft or not or even if
one finds working with a particular technology stuck "joyful",
although we all prefer standards we have some personal affinity for :)

The question is whether or not it will be implemented in real systems
in an interoperable manner. That's what standards are for. Multiple
incompatible drafts go against that.

Again, in our experience for interop reasons we need *one* draft for a
Rec-track social data syntax, and our charter specified that would be
in JSON. If folks have the time to make other drafts, that's fine but
please keep those in the IG or in relevant CGs.

I personally think JSON-LD as an optional feature is fine for the time
being. Given how close they are and the fact that vast majority of the
world doesn't have JSON-LD aware parsers (or even know what JSON-LD
is) but almost everyone uses JSON, I think JSON-LD as an option (as
ActivityStreams 2.0) is a reasonable compromise for the time being.
I'm sure James can align even closer to JSON-LD enough to keep
everyone happy.

So, let's focus on maturing one draft in the WG and not have multiple
drafts in parallel.

   cheers,
           harry


> 
> For example:
> 
> 1) one continuing current work on AS2.0 2) one based on Linked Data
> principles, RDF model and JSON-LD serialization, possibly (but not
> necessarily!) staying aligned with schema.org/Action 3) one based
> on HTML, experience of IndieWebCamp community and their recent
> discovers (I realize it may not fit our 'outdated' charter but if 
> we work in parallel i see no problem with supporting it)
> 
> I see such approach especially useful if we use the very same
> scenarios for our code snippets in those drafts. As well as prove
> support for the very same use cases in our reference
> implementations. IMO this will allow concrete evaluation of those
> different strategies and ASAP gather feedback from broader
> community of people who plan to implement recommendations coming
> out of this group.
> 
> Myself I would like to focus on option 2 (embracing Linked Data),
> but also follow and offer my feedback on other actively developed
> drafts. Seeing very strong support for Linked Data technologies in
> our group, I hope that many other members will also engage in
> effort of producing relevant draft.
> 
> Once again, to clarify my motivations, I hope such coordinated
> parallel work will make it possible to: *Invest our talents and
> energy into creative and joyful process, and prevent us from
> drifting into arguments and making this specification effort a
> miserable experience to all the participants*.
> 
> Thank you for taking you time to read it, and I look forward to 
> read/hear your feedback :)
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-23
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=oV9A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 10:32:28 UTC