search

solid / solid-wg-charter

Proposed charter for the W3C Solid Working Group
Other
10 stars 7 forks source link

clarify the handling of low-maturity normative references #63

Closed pchampin closed 7 months ago

pchampin commented 11 months ago

address w3c/charter-drafts#453

pchampin commented 7 months ago

@csarven

I'll interpret it as the guidance from W3C Team

Yes, I'll double check with other team members, but this is my recollection of some discussions I had internally.

In all likelihood, the WG will actually pick up https://solidproject.org/ED/protocol a

Good point, that's changed.

csarven commented 7 months ago

@pchampin Regarding https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/63/commits/3f6a7e5dd8b156498bff20a8bab8ce2e755ccc4c , what I meant as "input" in https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2024-01-31.md#wg-charter-update and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2023Nov/0094.html (ctrl-f "input"):

A revision to the charter should suggest solution areas (deliverables) to be discussed in the WG and that x, y, z (specs) can be used as input.

Taking the Social Web WG Charter ( https://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter ) as an example. There are areas such as the protocol, syntax, and so forth. I'm suggesting something similar here. The specific specifications are literally inputs towards the main goals. This will give other initiatives / approaches the chance to be considered on equal grounds. This is likely to raise less alarms and more of an understanding for the Members. It raises the bar for formal objections since others successful charters followed a similar path. If anything, we're acknowledging. Whether that leads to most successful approach is a separate matter, and hard to determine up front. IMO.

The Web Annotation Charter ( https://www.w3.org/annotation/charter/ ) also took a similar approach. It does however call out a couple of specifications as a starting point. Our mileage may very.

pchampin commented 7 months ago

@csarven

what I meant as "input" ...

Yes, I agree that we need to clarify the relationship between the WG's deliverable and the CG's Solid Protocol: this is an input document, not a first working draft. I'll address that in a separate PR, coming soon.

pchampin commented 7 months ago

force-push after a rebase