Re: The OWL file

No, issue triage meetings are not the time to advance work based on 
minuted decision-making.

Typically, issue triage is a time in which we answer questions by adding 
pages to the AP or AS2 Primer; create errata PRs for later review by the 
CG; or close duplicate issues.

It was a mistake on my part to make changes to this unofficial file 
without consulting the group. To be honest, I have only thought about it 
as a loose end for the last 5-7 years, and having a way to wrap it up 
seemed pretty convenient.

Also, having people on the call who were enthusiastic about stepping up 
was pretty energizing.

I've reverted the change and we are having this conversation here. I'll 
also put a proposal on the agenda for next week's meeting.

Evan

On 2023-12-08 12:57 p.m., Sarven Capadisli 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
>

Received on Friday, 8 December 2023 20:57:34 UTC