On 21 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Andy Seaborne wrote: > We've done all the necessary things (note to self: check it's all recorded): > IP, website, developer community, development, release, added committers and > PMC members. > > I haven’t heard anyone disagreeing with the idea of graduating ... now would > be a good time to speak up if you've forgotten to send email about something. > :-)
+1 > = Proposal for Description > > Our issue for a description that does not mess up Stanbol, Clerezza Any23 and > any possible future projects. Obviously, in a short description, its not > going to be precise to Jena, and it needs to be open to things that Jena > might receive in the future. Not messing up 'any possible future projects' gives quite a hostage to fortune :-) > First text: > > [[ > the processing, storage and retrieval of semantic web data > ]] > which does not say "publish" which I would have if it included "linked data". Include 'publish' either way: we include serialisers after all. > Second text (same) > > Alternative: > s/semantic web data/linked data/ > > I chose "semantic web" as it's about the base technology, not the > manifestation, "linked data" - this isn't primarily for marketing. I'm indifferent having never been that keen on either label. I like the 'web' in semantic web and 'data' in linked data :-) Overall I think this is fine. One suggestion: should we mention supporting standards / recommendations? I don't want to commit us to supporting all W3C recs of course (!), but I'd consider any contribution that improved standards support a good fit with jena. Damian
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
