Re: The OWL file

On 2023-12-08 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.

Would this from https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/socialcg/ suffice:

 >It is also a place to incubate new proposals which build on or 
complement the Social Web WG recommendations.

If not, please refer me to charter/process/agreement... a decision 
policy of any sort that justifies what belongs to the SWCG and not, and 
how you're going at having any sense of group consensus.

See also: 
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/516#issuecomment-1847830548

> 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 argument is not that a W3C Group is the only place to contribute to 
it. In the same way no one argues that SWCG is the only place to work on 
"social web" stuff.

The point is that the SWCG is the most suitable place to move the work 
forward, and it is certainly not something appearing out of thing air or 
out of scope.

But if I'm mistaken, then I suggest we update the CG's description / 
goals, charter, decision policy, or whatever that make all this crystal 
clear instead of handwaving what belongs here and what not.

Here is a lazy search for "owl" just in the w3c/activitystreams repo:

https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aw3c%2Factivitystreams%20owl&type=code

* 4 codes
* 35 issues (including open and closed)
* 8 PRs (including open and closed)

If people came forward / invested their time, it is probably good enough 
signal that there is interest to be a "work item". Again, if you don't 
like that word, feel free to pick something else, but then I'm going to 
ask for something more concrete on what constitutes "work" in this CG 
and what not, or can qualify as something that people can work on re 
scope. What's being asked is not some random technology that touches on 
"social web" stuff to be taken up here but quite literally something 
that's already well-acknowledged by existing material.

So, back to the core discussion. Leave the RDF/OWL file in 
w3c/activitystreams alone because it is closest to related material and 
it is the simplest path to discovery and getting contributions.

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

Received on Friday, 8 December 2023 21:24:04 UTC