Re: The OWL file

The OWL file is a nice open source project to have for those who prefer
machine readable ontologies but it's absolutely not a "work item" of our
group and has never been one. The idea that it needs to be under the
purview of a W3 Group or no-one will contribute to it seems specious to
me—if people find it useful, they'll contribute to it, just like any other
open source project.

Since the file was only ever including in the repo by historical accident,
I think it's kind of silly to expect a giant Consensus effort just to
consider moving it to a more appropriate home that better represents it's
status

On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, 11:58 AM Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> 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
>
>