W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2021

Re: Chartering work has started for a Linked Data Signature Working Group @W3C

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 11:30:02 -0400
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <81c23b97-1b9d-fd94-b58e-6438400c5df3@gmail.com>
Just saying that A is used as a synonym of B doesn't make using A when B is 
what is really meant innocuous.  Even worse, the statement, although it 
actually doesn't say that A and B are the same, can far too easily be taken as 
a statement that A and B are the same.

So I view the "minimal" change in PR 65 as actually quite a dramatic change, 
with high potential negative consequences. Instead I get my kicks on PR 66 and 
prefer to follow it more than two years all the way from draft to rec.

peter



On 5/3/21 10:39 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Trying to move things ahead I have created two different pull requests:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65 
> <https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65> with
> Preview 
> <https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65.html>: 
> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65.html 
> <https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65.html>
> Diff: 
> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/65/7ace91f...38507c3.html 
> <https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/65/7ace91f...38507c3.html>
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/66 
> <https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/66> with
> Preview: https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/66.html 
> <https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/66.html>
> Diff: 
> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/66/7ace91f...e306629.html 
> <https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/66/7ace91f...e306629.html>
>
>
> The first is a minimal change: it just adds a sentence on the LD/RDF 
> equivalence (plus incorporates a separate proposal by Andy to rename one of 
> the deliverables). The second is a maximal change in that in uses the term 
> RDF uniformly everywhere (including the name of the WG).
>
> At this point I am not sure which of the two changes are better, in view of 
> we said about the problem with the term "Linked Data". I expect that, apart 
> from the exact wording, the first version is not controversial; I do expect 
> some problems with the second version, in view of the differences among 
> communities. But I want to get the discussions to continue on concrete 
> versions rather than generalities.
>
> However, Dan, I also tried to find the quotes you criticized, like
>
> > ...W3C isn’t helping itself with the “this secures the authenticity and 
> integrity of the web of linked data” hype.
> > ...secure the integrity and authenticity of the fast growing web of linked data
>
> and I did not find those (I would agree that, if they were there, we would 
> need to reduce hype). Either I really have to get my glasses changed or we 
> are not looking at the same document…
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 3 May 2021 15:30:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 3 May 2021 15:30:19 UTC