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

-.5 to 65; kinda weird to say "in this scope we're calling X Y" without implying a broader and more controversial change.
+1 to 66; evaporates a lot of pixie dust and makes the deliverable dead clear.

In the interest of marketing, I'd be OK with a Linked Data title and changing the 1st sentence in the scope back to "The deployment of Linked Data is increasing at a rapid pace ." I think that motivates the work while leaving no question about what will be done.

(I'd have proposed this in GitHub but thought it better to let 66 go through unmolested and get to molesting it after it's resolved.)


On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:30:02AM -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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 19:28:09 UTC