incubator-jena-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Seaborne <>
Subject Re: [Graduation] Resolution description text
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:56:13 GMT
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 :-)


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.


> Damian

View raw message