For those that may be unfamiliar with the Fedora API Specification, the gist of the relevancy is that it extends LDP and is generally compatible with the Solid Protocol (similar roots.) It has a solution for various deliberations that were raised in the Solid Protocol. It also normatively references Web Access Control: https://solid.github.io/web-access-control-spec/ , which is also normatively referenced in the Solid Protocol. So, this is all highly useful and constructive input.
That said, whether the inclusion of this potential input needs to meet a certain criteria, that'd be good to note here, e.g., does it actually need the "approval" of the Fedora Commons/Project to be mentioned in the charter, or can the charter or the WG simply re-use/borrow/incorporate recommendations from the Fedora API Specification 1.0 (CC BY 4.0 licensed) towards "a protocol specification" - I don't see why not but the Solid CG and W3C Team/community can make that call and put it on record.
@cwilso
This seems like an unclear formatting: it says "Solid spec, adopted from SolidCG, Fedora API spec". I think you mean "Solid spec, adopted from Solid CG; Fedora API spec"? or bullets, or something.
I think the biggest concern would be provenance of Fedora features and IPR coverage; not that such is impossible to resolve, just needs to be done.
as suggested by @csarven in https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/69/files#r1533548940
Conversation copied below
@csarven Putting the following suggestion on the table following https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/69/files#r1533485709 with the understanding that it'd be useful to have on record genuine intentions of the charter proposal:
For those that may be unfamiliar with the Fedora API Specification, the gist of the relevancy is that it extends LDP and is generally compatible with the Solid Protocol (similar roots.) It has a solution for various deliberations that were raised in the Solid Protocol. It also normatively references Web Access Control: https://solid.github.io/web-access-control-spec/ , which is also normatively referenced in the Solid Protocol. So, this is all highly useful and constructive input.
That said, whether the inclusion of this potential input needs to meet a certain criteria, that'd be good to note here, e.g., does it actually need the "approval" of the Fedora Commons/Project to be mentioned in the charter, or can the charter or the WG simply re-use/borrow/incorporate recommendations from the Fedora API Specification 1.0 (CC BY 4.0 licensed) towards "a protocol specification" - I don't see why not but the Solid CG and W3C Team/community can make that call and put it on record.
@cwilso This seems like an unclear formatting: it says "Solid spec, adopted from SolidCG, Fedora API spec". I think you mean "Solid spec, adopted from Solid CG; Fedora API spec"? or bullets, or something.
I think the biggest concern would be provenance of Fedora features and IPR coverage; not that such is impossible to resolve, just needs to be done.