- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 07:54:08 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 6/5/21 5:51 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > > >> On 4 Jun 2021, at 17:57, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org >> <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>> wrote: >> >> >> [...] >> >> We are creating a charter. Although not in a legal sense, but it is a bit >> like creating a contract. You know pretty well the way the W3C process >> works, and you know very well that the only thing that counts is what the >> charter says. Everything else is a subject of discussion in the WG. If you >> want to make it sure that JSON-LD does not unduly affects the final >> deliverables, or that the context related problems are properly discussed, >> then, by all means, join the WG. That is the place where things should be >> discussed. >> >> Cheers >> >> Ivan >> Charters are somewhere between contracts, where everything is spelled out, and constitutions, where very little is spelled out. This charter looks very much on the constitution side. My new worry is that given this constitution-style charter, particularly the Linked Data wording and the inability to change it, is that the work will be tilted towards signing JSON-LD and no other syntax for RDF datasets will be considered until this part is done. My view is that instead the core goal of the WG should be, and should be spelled out to be, getting a way to sign and verify (some useful subset of) RDF datasets using the simplest means possible. It appears to me that this can best be achieved by using NQuads as the serialization syntax, but the WG would make this determination. The WG could be given other, stretch, goals but it would be considered a success if this core goal is met. peter
Received on Saturday, 5 June 2021 11:55:46 UTC