Closed pchampin closed 5 months ago
afs
commented
7 months ago Is this an opportunity to change the name of the WG to "RDF 1.2 Working Group"?
"RDF 1.2" is used in the document names and their URLs.
Renaming a GH repository does leave indirection in place.
I realise that changing the name of the WG may not be practical.
gkellogg
commented
7 months ago The SPARQL 1.2 Community Group is now the SPARQL Dev Community Group.
Even though the RDF Dataset Canonicalization WG charter expires this summer, they should probably be listed for coordination.
pchampin
commented
7 months ago Is this an opportunity to change the name of the WG to "RDF 1.2 Working Group"?
To be clear: in retrospect, I prefer "RDF 1.2", I wish we had chose that name of the WG instead of "RDF-star". I don't know if it is OK to rename a WG in a rechartering, I'm guessing it would be).
However, I'm afraid that some people might perceive a renaming as an attempt to change the scope of the WG, and that it would create unnecessary friction.
When we have our RECs published (RDF 1.2 xyz and SPARQL 1.2 xyz) and we go to a maintenance group on these specs, I think it will be less controversial to rename to "RDF 1.2 WG". But before that, I'm reluctant.
afs
commented
7 months ago some people might perceive
It's tricky. At the move to a maintenance group, a change of name may cause increased expectations.
How about adding to the description to explain the change of name because of the existing remit over all the docs?
gkellogg
commented
7 months ago I wonder if the issue with TAG discussions on Polyglot formats bears any relation on RDF/XML or SPARQL Result formats. It would also impact RDFa and CSVW, which we're not working on, but are related. See https://github.com/ietf-wg-mediaman/suffixes/issues and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/iWc8TLcWOyO0jyqeiuF9VCZClIs/.
domel
commented
5 months ago
Preview | Diff
Preview | Diff