On 31/01/12 23:32, Damian Steer wrote:
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 :-)
Yes :-) It's something to be aware of, rather than an absolute condition.
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.
s/retrieval/publication/ ?
[[
the processing, storage and publication of semantic web data
]]
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 :-)
+1
But putting in our own terminology like "data web" kinda begs
explanation. "web of data" or "data web" are a bit wide.
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.
Good point - that is an important part of Jena.
Not sure if this:
[[
the processing, storage and publication of semantic web data through the
use of standards
]],
meaning de facto and de jure standards, is any better as tends to go too
far the other way as suggesting standards only.
Any wording suggestions?
If get to 2 or 3 possibilities, we can line them out a take a strawpoll.
Andy
Damian
