You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@marmotta.apache.org by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> on 2012/12/12 19:09:43 UTC
W3C LDP-WG participation
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
[2] Editors' working draft: Linked Data Platform 1.0
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
[4] Working group list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/
[5] Working group comments list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/
[6] Open issues:
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/open
[7]
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=55082&public=1
Re: W3C LDP-WG participation
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <se...@gmail.com>.
Great! Sergio will be a great representative of Apache and Marmotta at W3C,
thanks for taking the role! ;-)
Greetings,
Sebastian
2012/12/14 Sergio Fernández <se...@salzburgresearch.at>
> Hi Andy,
>
> perfect, I got my nomination to the WG. On Monday I'll send the
> introduction message to the mailing list.
>
> Thanks so much.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 14/12/12 11:23, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> Sergio,
>>
>> I got the confirmation of your affiliation change from W3C and have
>> added you to the ASF people on the LDP WG.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> On 13/12/12 19:05, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>
>>> 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<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 <an...@apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>> <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/>
>>>>>> <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/>
>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>> <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
> Salzburg Research
> +43 662 2288 318
> Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
> A-5020 Salzburg (Austria)
> http://www.salzburgresearch.at
>
Re: W3C LDP-WG participation
Posted by Sergio Fernández <se...@salzburgresearch.at>.
Hi Andy,
perfect, I got my nomination to the WG. On Monday I'll send the
introduction message to the mailing list.
Thanks so much.
Cheers,
On 14/12/12 11:23, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Sergio,
>
> I got the confirmation of your affiliation change from W3C and have
> added you to the ASF people on the LDP WG.
>
> Andy
>
> On 13/12/12 19:05, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> 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 <an...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
Salzburg Research
+43 662 2288 318
Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
A-5020 Salzburg (Austria)
http://www.salzburgresearch.at
Re: W3C LDP-WG participation
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
Sergio,
I got the confirmation of your affiliation change from W3C and have
added you to the ASF people on the LDP WG.
Andy
On 13/12/12 19:05, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> 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 <an...@apache.org>
>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: W3C LDP-WG participation
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
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 <an...@apache.org>
>>
>>> 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
Re: W3C LDP-WG participation
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
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 <an...@apache.org>
>
>> 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>
>>
Re: W3C LDP-WG participation
Posted by Sebastian Schaffert <ss...@apache.org>.
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 <an...@apache.org>
> 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>
>