Re: The OWL file

On 08/12/23 20:53, nightpool wrote:
> 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.

The main use of an OWL ontology for AS2 would be to detect eventual 
inconsistencies in the specification, provided that the ontology maps 
the specification slavishly. However at this stage that the development 
of AS2, probably the only appropriate use of such an ontology would be 
for checking integrations with other ontologies.

CL

>
> 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
>