See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: phila
http://www.w3.org/2014/12/16-w3process-minutes.html#item03
Arnaud: I get info I wouldn't get any other way, so I find it useful
ivan: When I was Activity lead it
was useful for me
... it was not always easy to find a specific topic to
discuss
... now in a different situation
... not really part of this any more
phila: Why no call in the DPub Activity
ivan: We only have one group
(plus annotations)
... not a lot to coordinate
... if we get more then yes, we may want to set uo a CG
... what did come up in discussion, not with the chairs, but
with AC Reps (publishers etc)
... they'd like to have some sort of a group that looks at the
strategic level
... what should be happening in the Activity
... maybe Arnaud is both
... it's not a Coordination Group, it's a driving
committee...
phila: Sounds like Soeren, Sebastian and Kerstin here
ivan: Hmm... in DPub it would be different kinds of people, more business focused
Soeren: I'm at Fraunhofer as well
as at the Uni. So I think I have some impact from that
area
... but I think we could strengthen the stakeholder
involvement. They'd be too far fron the IT dept. to come to
this call
... they're more users of tech than leaders
ivan: I agree, yes. Not easy to
find those people
... if I look at Cambridge Semantics - we know some people v
well. But they have some more on business side of same group
who we don't know
Sebastian: I think the call is
quite good as it provides info at the right level. I'm also in
this bridging people - what kind of standardisation is goinbg
on wrt data
... there is a group of people interested in these topics
... industries, integrators etc.
... MarkLogic, SWC etc.
... so for me it's usefeul
Kerstin: For me it's an
opportunity for updates on what's happening on Web of
Data
... trying to be connected in HCLS etc.
Sebastian: Idea is to have a
workshop at SEMANTiCS on infrastructure and standards -
infrastructure helped by standards
... so maybe Shapes work -> validators as part of the
stack
... want to explore relationship between the two. topic will
evolve as we develop the workshop ideas
Arnaud: I see the relationship
between the two but it's not my thing.
... Market pressure means that standards are seen as taking too
long
... we have a whole group working on LD, and yet it hasn't
taken over IBM and there are sceptics
... so always interested in discussions around insights into
the market.
Soeren: What I feel in Germany
now - there's a great push towards Industrie 4.0; linking
machiens and shop floors
... is there something at W3C on this?
http://www.gs1.org/docs/gtin_plus/GTINOTW-ImplementationGuide-i1-prd1.pdf
Soeren: I was thinking about
sensors on the manufacturing floor
... and I think LD and W3C can help there
... I think they use a lot of proprietary methods. If you have
hundreds of robots from diff manufacturers/open standards you
need more
http://www.w3.org/2014/spatial/charter
Kerstin: I've not come across that
More concerned with IMI. OpenPhacts, SemWeb comes up more and more
Arnaud: LDP initially chartered
to June 2014 (3 years)
... we weren't done, asked for extension until now. Managed to
publish main spec at PR
... LDP Paging spec split out from that main spec is now at
CR
... so what's next?
... plenty more to do
... developed the wish list... => new charter? But people
weren't sure what the priorities were.
... multiple discussions... wait another 6 months and see what
happens... lead to request for a further 6 month
experiment
... also asking to host a workshop to ask the community about
what the priorities are
... Now have LD Patch format to incrementally update data
phila: Do you agree with Sandro
that this is really about Web Apps
... Social Web WG is looking at LDP for their protocol
... we might see what they would need.
... we could wait and see what their requirements are
Next meeting will be 4 February