Hi Andy, thanks for raising this issue. We as an organization (Salzburg Research) have long considered becoming members of W3C, but in the end we never managed to. In general, both time for participation and funding is a problem. However, I would greatly appreciate if at least one of the project contributors would like to act as a member of the LDP working group through ASF.
I would volunteer, but as you said this decision must not be taken lightly, and I have had my share of difficult discussions in W3C groups. On the other hand, I think it would be good if the project had influence on the way the LDP develops, because I consider it important to involve people really working with code. I will think about it and let you know as soon as possible (but there is probably no need to hurry). Any other volunteers? Greetings, Sebastian 2012/12/12 Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> > The Marmotta proposal refers to the W3C LDP Working Group [1]. > > Participation in W3C working groups is by representatives of member > organisations [*] or, occasionally, as an invited expert. For example, > Nandana is on the WG via Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. > > That makes it difficult for people from non-member organisations to fully > participate in the working group discussions. It is possible to make > comments [5], which the WG is required to respond to, but it is on separate > mailing lists. If you aren't on the WG, you can't send to the WG mailing > list [4] directly. > > If you work for member organisation, you should go via that route to make > the IP issues clear. > > But if you are not an employee of a W3C member, there is another way. > > ASF is a member of W3C. > > ASF will nominate committers who want to join a working group and that > includes committers of projects in incubation. > > Currently work areas are the use case and requirements document [3] and > refining the spec [2]. There are lots of open issues [6] - they are a bit > cryptic if you haven't been following the discussions. > > If any committer of Marmotta wants to join the LDP-WG via the ASF route > then the process is that you are nominated by the ASF W3C rep ... which > currently is me :-). > > At the moment, ASF has two people on the LDP-WG: myself and Henry Story. > I'm not very active, and Henry is mainly focused on WebId and it's > relationship to LDP. If having 3 is raised as a issue, I'll step aside > (there isn't a formal limit as far as I know). > > One note of caution: to be effective on a WG requires keeping up with the > discussions. It does require time spent each week to keep up with the email > traffic, before even participating in discussions. It is not a step to be > taken too lightly. You are making a personal commitment > to the IP policy of the working group so check that out. > > Current members of the WG => [7] > I wouldn't describe all of them as "active". > > Andy > > [*] Good use of semweb: > > A ASF Member is a person > A W3C Member is an organisation > Very different uses of "member"! > > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/**wiki/Main_Page<http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page> > > [2] Editors' working draft: Linked Data Platform 1.0 > > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/**ldp.html<http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html> > > [3] Editors' working draft: UC&R: > > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/**wiki/Use_Cases_And_**Requirements<http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements> > > [4] Working group list: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-ldp-wg/<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/> > > [5] Working group comments list: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-ldp/<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/> > > [6] Open issues: > > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/**track/issues/open<http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/open> > > [7] > http://www.w3.org/2000/09/**dbwg/details?group=55082&**public=1<http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=55082&public=1> >
