Re: The OWL file

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 at 09:38, Cristiano Longo <
cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> wrote:

> To be honest, I'm just an old Semantic Web developer (do you remember
> the Semantic Web) and my primary source of specifications are RDFS and
> OWL vocabularies, regardless of the serialization used to provide them.
> Activity streams and activity pub aren't strictly linked data matters as
> they don't cope with general linked data formats and applications, they
> are just applications of linked data tecnologies.
>

Even though there is a @Context header, or header array block ?

Aaron


>
> apologize for my English,
>
> CL
>
> On 08/12/23 22:23, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>

-- 
Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org

Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher,
Information Theorist, and Computer Scientist.