W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: ISSUE-47 Proposal for LDP vocabulary document

From: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:48:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOUJ7JqFc=c1Qc=q7gXLUObv1GDSg+O6=4AEDr3vLRfVJ1fEmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 21:22, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I had my fingers near the original member submission vocabulary and
>> was easy for me to tweak for what we current have in the spec [2].
>>
>> I propose that we close ISSUE-47 with the vocabulary at [2].
>>
>> I also propose the editors maintain this, along with the spec, to
>> ensure consistency between the two.
>>
>> [1] - http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/ldbp.rdf
>> [2] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.ttl
>
> +1
>
> It may be helpful to have a LDPR class and have LDPC be
> a subclass of it.  I think we have agreement on this, and it
> helps understanding. Also a pointer to the spec would probably
> be very useful for people coming across this document by
> following links.
>

Maybe useful but the spec currently doesn't define the class
ldp:Resource so adding it to the vocab now would be premature.  It
would be good to understand why we need it before we add it (what
problem is it solving?).

How would one point to the spec? rdfs:seeAlso ? I would expect that
eventually http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp would direct to an HTML rep (when
requested) and the spec doesn't feel like the right thing but a simple
HTML page perhaps generated from the vocab document.  Is there some
W3C best practice on this?

>>
>> --
>> - Steve Speicher
>>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>



-- 
- Steve
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 18:49:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:29 UTC