New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
definition of "aspirational" should be further clarified #23
Comments
This issue was created during a discussion around the Verifiable Claims Working Group Charter Vote. The complete thread can be found here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2016OctDec/0139.html I've taken an excerpt of that discussion and included it below:
|
Other than this point*:
The rest of the list items don't show anything contrary to aspirational, and on the contrary (so to speak) actually strengthen the "aspirational" impression/assertion. with words like "community", "consensus", "buy-in", "experts" (appeal to authority), "commitments". Aspirational vs empirical has been in practice about actual implementation (demonstrated running code) vs. just political advocacy (rough consensus). Both are needed. Here is some straw text that I have found resonates with a few people. Documenting here for the sake of discussion/iteration/improvement: aspirational in the context of a spec: normative spec feature text describing a behavior that has no evidence of implementation, e.g. prototyping, with actual running code. (*) Aside: the "Multiple implementations … with active deployments" point is diluted by the fact that many of the [n] citations are not to implementations, but rather other specifications[9][12]. Another spec is just more text, not an implementation, certainly not a deployment nor actively so. Others are advocacy homepages which may have deployments but are buried so deep that it is unreasonable to expect anyone attempting to verify the claim of deployment to find them.[14] A few are github repos[10][13], which is likely good evidence of prototyping (implementations worth noting!), but do not on their own constitute an "active deployment", lacking a URL where said repo is deployed and running. Of all the citations, only one, [11]https://demo.checkpoint.veres.io/, seems to actually be an "active deployment". All that being said, any apparent source or running implementations[10][11][13] helps demonstrate incubation, and thus work beyond just "aspirational". |
I think the definition of "aspirational" in the RTRC should be further clarified with additional prose and examples.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: