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

Re: LDP Minutes of June 3 - straw-poll ?

From: Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:26:51 +0100
CC: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <85BAC82E-78FD-4070-A4DE-AF1BACEFD86E@uk.fujitsu.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
hi Henry, 

>> 
>> At the end of the teleconf yesterday, you were leading us towards a straw-poll around the membershipXX (and related) issues. I thought that might be quite interesting. I don't think it is simply a case of is there is a fixed name (or not) for the relationship between things inside boxes. 
>> 
>> My characterisation: 
>> 
>> 1. Managing Documents (about Things) in Boxes 
>> 2. Use Boxes to help managing Things (which might be inside Documents)
> 
> Web Interactions are always about interactions with information resources, be they
> LDPCs ( boxes ) and LDPRs ( usually Documents )
> 
> Documents speak about things. Things may nor may not be inside boxes. Certainly most
> things are neither LDPRs or LDPCs. There are apples, oranges, spiders, cats, meetings,
> asteroids, that have been around way before LDPCs have been. These things are not
> managed by LDPCs: Information about them is collected in LDPRs.
> 
> So 1. Managing documents in LDPCs, given that the documents speak about things
> gives you all the tools you need to speak about everything in the known universe
> and beyond. LDP is in the end very simple.

I hope so ... 

No.1 is kind of like LDized-ATOM.
No.2 is closer to the notion of read/write LD. 

I would like LDP to provide the protocol basis for manipulating Things. That why I say that Boxes are just a means to an end (rather than the end themselves). Boxes just contain the membershipTriples.

> The use case people are trying to solve with the propertyXX relations I think needs to
> be worked out and described carefully. The the idea would be to find some patterns 
> that allow you to  satisfy the use case of adding  relations in connected LDPRs when creating an LDPR.
> 
> 
>> 
>> I believe that no.2 is where more applications are.    
> 
> Since you can do everyting with 1, you can't claim there are more applications in 2.

That's true. 
So one can do everything with both models :) 
Which one is the mainstream developer going to be happier with ? 

Roger

p.s. you didn't register you entry for the straw-poll. Can I assume it's no.1 ... ?



Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 12:27:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:51 UTC