- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:38:30 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 6/5/21 7:05 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > Manu tells us there is a huge community and corpus of existing work, > expertise, best practice, and real world applications just waiting for this > WG to begin. *nods emphatically* :) > Ivan tells us to only look at the exact words in the charter because > “...the only thing that counts is what the charter says”. I don't think that's what he was conveying... as he's clarified in a newer email. > The other thing that matters - perhaps more - is who shows up to join the > WG. Yes, true. > It’s just a gamble, anything could come of this charter as-is. Oh, no... hyperbole. > It could more or less rubberstamp the existing designs I've never seen this happen in a W3C WG. :) > it could start from zero and build quite fresh designs and usecases I would expect objections to varying degrees. "You mean, you want to throw away all of the proofs, specs, and implementations and you're asking us to take you at your word that you have something better than what we've taken as input documents? You're welcome to work on that, please let us know when you're done... in the meantime, we have things that are far more developed that deserve our attention right now." > or something painfully in the middle. The middle path seems to be: Take the input documents, analyse and debate them (as we do), and produce something better as a REC. The middle of your two extremes sounds like what a W3C WG is supposed to do. > My instinct remains that this looks like a RIF-grade painful mix somewhere > in the middle. Sure, we don't want RIF-grade pain. It's not obvious to me how the charter leads us there, especially if we put the limitations you suggested earlier in? > Maybe I am wrong, but the lesser of two may be to lean towards the > rubberstamping of the VC work, but to be explicit about that. Yes, you're wrong. :) We don't have to pick from two terrible choices when we have a charter that is proposing something far more reasonable. I think the issue here continues to be one of scoping, and the suggestions that Phil, Ivan, and you have put forward to more narrowly scope feel like good compromises to me. Why can't we just do that? -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
Received on Sunday, 6 June 2021 21:39:02 UTC