Re: The OWL file

Evan, I appreciate that you are raising this here as well so that more 
people can have a say...

On 2023-12-08 17:38, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> The original development file for AS2 was an OWL file.
> 
> I don't think it was ever edited after James Snell created the first 
> JSON-LD context file.
> 
> But it's been in the Activity Streams 2.0 repository on GitHub since it 
> was created.

Perfectly fine to keep it closest to related material in the same 
repository.

As mentioned elsewhere, w3c/activitystreams does include other material 
that are neither normative or official or whatever, so categorically 
that's not a criteria to have something reside in w3c/activitystreams.

It is just sensible and simple to keep it where it is as I see it.

> Ben 
> Goering pointed out that it probably needed more consensus and a 
> discussion here.

Right. Some process / decision policy - whatever/however it is - to give 
folks a chance to respond to a decision. If there was prior consent from 
the/a group on how to proceed in this case, great, refer to it so there 
aren't surprises or objections beyond a certain point. This is a task 
for the whole CG.

> I'd love to see this unofficial file maintained and updated. I think 
> moving it to a repo where people in the LD community can maintain it is 
> a great solution.

SWCG is the closest / most reasonable Group that can take it on as a 
work item considering existing references to the content with the 
RDF/OWL document, as well as open issues/PRs that's been around for 
sometime. And, evidently, there are people interested in working on it 
through the SWCG.

I don't think framing it as a LD community thing helps. It is either a 
SWCG "work item" or it is not. A Group needs to have it under its 
purview to push the work ahead as a service to the wider community. SWCG 
is the most obvious home for it (IMO). But that's all orthogonal to the 
repository it is in, and should continue to live in.

I saw this email after I wrote 
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/516#issuecomment-1847558436 
so I won't repeat but hope you don't mind me quoting myself:

 >The actual needs/concerns that are brought forward are still:
 >* there are technical changes that should be integrated into this RDF/OWL
 >* what's the process / decision policy to get these changes integrated 
(and published)?

Pardon me if I've missed the memo but are issue triage meetings the way 
to advance some work based on minuted decision making?

Do I need to show up to that meeting to help advance or raise 
concerns/considerations, e.g., what I also wrote just earlier in 
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/416#issuecomment-1847543536 ?

-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Friday, 8 December 2023 17:58:12 UTC