W3C Community Group as platform for discussion?

[azaroth42]

In order to have a standards focused, community neutral platform for discussion, @azaroth42 @awoods and @daniel-dgi agree that a W3C Community Group would be appropriate. It there is consensus around that approach, this issue is then to draft and agree on a proposal for the creation of that group.

From W3C:

Propose a group with a title and short summary. The description should provide enough information that will help people decide whether to join, such as a brief statement of the group's mission, goals, and deliverables. Please state clearly whether the group will create specifications.

Non members may join Community Groups. Rob would propose it.

[ruebot]

:+1:

[ruebot]

...it'd also solving the wonderful problem of reply-all disciple on PCDM related threads :smile:

[jhsimpson]

:+1:

[cmharlow]

lurker dropping in to give another +1 to this idea.

[jpstroop]

:+1:

[azaroth42]

Proposed submission:

Title: PCDM Digital Object Structural Data Model

Summary: The PCDM Community Group is actively working towards a flexible, extensible domain model using Linked Data that is intended to underlie a wide array of hierarchical digital asset management systems. The primary objective of this model is to establish a framework that developers can use for ensuring interoperability between systems for the structure of simple (a photograph) or complex (a hierarchy of collections of objects with multiple representations and derivative content) objects. This work builds on experiences from the digital cultural heritage domain, such as galleries, libraries, archives, museums, research repositories, and similar.

[awoods]

:+1: to proposal and proposed submission.

[no-reply]

This was discussed a bit at Hydra Connect. Broadly, I'm +0 on the proposal to use the W3C community group framework, and :+1: on the submission text.

The +0 is because, as discussed at Connect, participants in the group would need to agree to the W3C COMMUNITY CLA on behalf of themselves and their employer. While I don't think this is necessarily a blocker, it does introduce a new licensing framework into our communities, which deserves serious consideration.

[awoods]

The two options that have been put on the table for exposing and coordinating PCDM activity are:

1. Create a W3C WG
2. Create PCDM-specific Google-Groups mailing lists

Based on @no-reply's CLA link, it is clear that participants in the W3C WG would be required to sign the CLA. Where do we see PCDM going? Is the value of a W3C trajectory worth the CLA barrier? If not, then maybe the lighter weight Google-Groups is a more reasonable path forward.

I either case, we should strive to resolve this issue in the near-term in order to establish a clear home for community communication as soon as possible.

[escowles]

As someone who had to wait for years to get permission to sign the Hydra CLA, I really don't think it's a good idea to require a CLA to participate in discussions -- that is much too high a barrier and will discourage people from engaging. So my vote is for creating a Google group for general discussion.

A W3C community group may be a good forum for discussion and moving towards formalizing the recommendations, but that's no substitute for a general purpose mailing list that anyone can join.

[ruebot]

I agree with @escowles. Any mention of patents is going to scare anybody and/or institution away.

[awoods]

We currently own the following three mailing lists:

• pcdm-tech@googlegroups.com
• pcdm-community@googlegroups.com
• pcdm@googlegroups.com

We can easily begin driving conversation to one or more of them pending committer consensus on this issue.

[ruebot]

Should we focus on having a single PCDM list given the difficultly in having discussions across three or more different lists now?

[escowles]

:+1: to a single list -- I would prefer the plain pcdm@googlegroups.com, but any of them would be fine.

[azaroth42]

:+1: to pcdm@googlegroups.com ; I don't think the CLA requirement is very big at W3C, but it does still exist and the trajectory isn't certain.

[awoods]

:+1: to pcdm@googlegroups.com

Shall we consider this issued closed? If so, I can announce the new channel to the community.

[no-reply]

:+1:

[ruebot]

@awoods :+1:

[escowles]

@awoods Looks like all +1's to me -- go ahead and announce the new list and close this issue.

[awoods]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pcdm/CzOe1-J1fB8/04akZJUwBQAJ