On 19/10/13 18:30, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 18/10/13 17:27, Sergio Fernández wrote:
So maybe the ASF could join the working group... what do you think?
<ASF-W3C-rep>
Yes, someone (or several someones) can.
BTW, do we need a mailing list to coordinate this? I mean, right now
there are five projects (Jena, Stanbol, Any23, Clerezza and Marmotta)
whose activity is related with W3C. The communities, of course, have
some cross-people, but even though would be healthy to have such of
coordination space. Not sure sure how that fits with the project-based
organization.
</ASF-W3C-rep>
Personal experience of W3C WGs:
Plan on active participation, not passive. Plan to attend telecons
(which is required for "good standing" although this is not often
enforced).
One lesson I learned with PDP WG is that it's hard to join in the
middle, particularly when many main lines are already taken. But that's
different. But that's why I sent the charter with enough time.
As a "best practices" (BP) group, it may well be that some work tracks
are interesting and some are not. BP groups tend to have several
reasonably separate stream is of activity and not one single focus.
I participated in a (last?) BP WG (Semantic Web Deployment) supporting
the edition of a note [1] with a tool [2] still current nowadays. From
there comes my curiosity in the topic, and because if I'd write that
note today, I'd have much better and simpler solutions for it.
Let's see...
Thanks, Andy.
Cheers,
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/
[2] http://validator.linkeddata.org
--
Sergio Fernández
Senior Researcher
Knowledge and Media Technologies
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/3 | 5020 Salzburg, Austria
T: +43 662 2288 318 | M: +43 660 2747 925
[email protected]
http://www.salzburgresearch.at
