Hi Andy,
we have internally discussed this today, and finally we have come to the
conclusion that I'll be the person in charge on representing Apache
Marmotta at the W3C LDP WG.
I've just requested the change of my affiliation at W3C, so you, as AC
of ASF, will receive my request. So then you'll be able to nominate me
to join the WG, and I can an email introducing myself and Apache
Marmotta to the WG members.
meanwhile we can discuss where people think we could be more effective
in the WG: technical requirements, specification or other aspects.
Thanks so much for you support, Andy.
Cheers,
On 12/12/12 20:51, Sergio Fernández wrote:
Hi,
I totally agree with Andy that we should collaborate somehow in the W3C
WG. In fact, I'm reading the mailing list and the telcos' minutes since
it was launched, simply because I find it extremely interesting.
Normally actively participate in a WG implies about 10% oftime per week;
just reading of course less. And for the moment our interaction with the
WG is reduced to some private conversations, plus listing LMF in the
wiki as potential LDP implementation:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations
As Sebastian commented, we have discussed internally the membership, and
we have never come to agree on that. Anyway that's not a big issue,
since we could try to access as invited experts. But having ASF as W3C
member makes everything easier :-)
I have some W3C experience (SWD, SWEO, WebID) from my previous company.
Therefore, if Sebastian prefers to keep out of the front line
discussions, and another person doesn't want to take such a task, I
volunteer to participate in the LDP WG and be the bridge with Marmotta.
I'm pretty sure we'll find the way to make the least impact to my
working responsibilities.
Cheers,
On 12.12.2012 19:21, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
Hi Andy,
thanks for raising this issue. We as an organization (Salzburg Research)
have long considered becoming members of W3C, but in the end we never
managed to. In general, both time for participation and funding is a
problem. However, I would greatly appreciate if at least one of the
project
contributors would like to act as a member of the LDP working group
through
ASF.
I would volunteer, but as you said this decision must not be taken
lightly,
and I have had my share of difficult discussions in W3C groups. On the
other hand, I think it would be good if the project had influence on the
way the LDP develops, because I consider it important to involve people
really working with code. I will think about it and let you know as
soon as
possible (but there is probably no need to hurry).
Any other volunteers?
Greetings,
Sebastian
2012/12/12 Andy Seaborne <[email protected]>
The Marmotta proposal refers to the W3C LDP Working Group [1].
Participation in W3C working groups is by representatives of member
organisations [*] or, occasionally, as an invited expert. For example,
Nandana is on the WG via Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
That makes it difficult for people from non-member organisations to
fully
participate in the working group discussions. It is possible to make
comments [5], which the WG is required to respond to, but it is on
separate
mailing lists. If you aren't on the WG, you can't send to the WG mailing
list [4] directly.
If you work for member organisation, you should go via that route to
make
the IP issues clear.
But if you are not an employee of a W3C member, there is another way.
ASF is a member of W3C.
ASF will nominate committers who want to join a working group and that
includes committers of projects in incubation.
Currently work areas are the use case and requirements document [3] and
refining the spec [2]. There are lots of open issues [6] - they are a
bit
cryptic if you haven't been following the discussions.
If any committer of Marmotta wants to join the LDP-WG via the ASF route
then the process is that you are nominated by the ASF W3C rep ... which
currently is me :-).
At the moment, ASF has two people on the LDP-WG: myself and Henry Story.
I'm not very active, and Henry is mainly focused on WebId and it's
relationship to LDP. If having 3 is raised as a issue, I'll step aside
(there isn't a formal limit as far as I know).
One note of caution: to be effective on a WG requires keeping up with
the
discussions. It does require time spent each week to keep up with the
email
traffic, before even participating in discussions. It is not a step
to be
taken too lightly. You are making a personal commitment
to the IP policy of the working group so check that out.
Current members of the WG => [7]
I wouldn't describe all of them as "active".
Andy
[*] Good use of semweb:
A ASF Member is a person
A W3C Member is an organisation
Very different uses of "member"!
[1]
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/**wiki/Main_Page<http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page>
[2] Editors' working draft: Linked Data Platform 1.0
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/**ldp.html<http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html>
[3] Editors' working draft: UC&R:
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/**wiki/Use_Cases_And_**Requirements<http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements>
[4] Working group list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-ldp-wg/<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/>
[5] Working group comments list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-ldp/<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/>
[6] Open issues:
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/**track/issues/open<http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/open>
[7]
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/**dbwg/details?group=55082&**public=1<http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=55082&public=1>
--
Sergio Fernández
