W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-comments@w3.org > April 2014

Re: ( LC-2914)

From: <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:28:01 +0000
Message-Id: <E1WdobB-0000eL-TZ@jessica.w3.org>
To: (wrong string) ür <reto@apache.org>
Cc: public-ldp-comments@w3.org
 Dear Reto Gmür ,

The Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Linked Data Platform 1.0
published on 11 Mar 2014. Thank you for having taken the time to review the
document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
been implemented in the new version of the document available at:

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-ldp-comments@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 5 April 2014.
In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution
for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus
cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal
objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition
of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.


For the Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group,
Eric Prud'hommeaux
Yves Lafon
W3C Staff Contacts

 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldp-20140311/


Your comment on 5.1 Introduction:
> Hello,
> I've notice that the latest published version suggest using RDF formats
> that support multiple named graphs. For the net-worth example it
> suggests 
> using "one named graph for the net worth resource and then two others
> for 
> asset and liability containers".
> I am irritated by this recommendation. First the specification mandates
> the possibility to serialize as turtle which does not currently support
> multiple named graphs.
> But more importantly I don't see the reason of this splitting of the 
> information into many graphs and it seems to significantly restrict the
> possibilities to implement LDP Servers.
> The suggested three graph do not seem to represent three different 
> information sources with thus potentially contradictory statements. So
> in 
> this situation there is typically no quotation-use case with provenance
> that must be preserved. Grouping into different graphs what can be
> safely 
> expressed in one graph seems to deny the expressive power of RDF and 
> suggesting that the grouping of triples into different graphs has a 
> significance beyond provenance.
> With the previous published version it was possible to have an LDP 
> compliant server backed by a single graph. This would be my choice of 
> implementation if the data has a single provenance and the access 
> restrictions are the same for all the triples. This change in the new 
> version seems however to mandate implementation to be based on different
> graphs for the different resources. 
> In my opinion this is a significant loss of flexibility. I would like
> for 
> simple implementations based on one graph to be possible. It can also be
> useful for an implementation to be based on multiple graphs representing
> different provenances or confidentiality but containing descriptions of
> larger and possibly overlapping sets of resources. With the latter 
> approach the resource description accessed through LDP would contain
> more 
> or less triples depending on my access rights and the sources I've
> decided 
> to trust.
> Cheers,
> Reto

Working Group Resolution (LC-2914):
The WG decided to remove references to named graphs by removing "named" in
terminology section, removing paragraph in examples, and removing sentence
in section and
See http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-04-15#resolution_3

Received on Friday, 25 April 2014 22:28:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:44:38 UTC