Re: ldp-ISSUE-77 (types of LDPR ): why MUST a LDPR declare it's type ... ? [Linked Data Platform core]

Sorry, I accidentally sent my message before I was done. I meant to add 
the following to the proposed description:

While it might be useful to know the type of the LDPR it's not essential 
to work with the interaction capabilities that LDP is offering and 
therefore this is more of a best practice.

I propose to remove this from the specification and add it to the 
Deployment Guide.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group




From:   Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
To:     Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>, 
Cc:     Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Date:   05/30/2013 08:00 AM
Subject:        Re: ldp-ISSUE-77 (types of LDPR  ): why MUST a LDPR 
declare it's type  ... ?  [Linked Data Platform core]



Hi Roger, 
It is important, especially that late in the process, to be as specific as 
possible when opening issues. As I said before I think the issue you 
raised is totally reasonable but as you entered it into the system you've 
made it much more general and less actionable. 

The issue shouldn't be entered as a question and shouldn't be open ended. 
Instead it should set what the problem is and include a proposal on how to 
address it. So, I suggest the following changes: 

Title: Requiring that an LDPR MUST declare its type is excessive 
Description: 

Section 4.1.5 of the specification states: 

"LDPRs MUST use the predicate rdf:type to represent the concept of type." 



--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote on 05/30/2013 02:38:35 
AM:

> From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> 
> To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, 
> Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org> 
> Date: 05/30/2013 02:39 AM 
> Subject: Re: ldp-ISSUE-77 (types of LDPR  ): why MUST a LDPR declare
> it's type ... ?  [Linked Data Platform core] 
> 
> 
> I am just saying that it might be useful to know the type of the 
> LDPR - not disputing that - but it's not essential to work with the 
> interaction capabilities that LDP is offering and therefore it is 
> more of a best practice thing. 
> 
> Roger
> 
> > 
> > On 30 May 2013, at 10:33, Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group
> Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> ldp-ISSUE-77 (types of LDPR  ): why MUST a LDPR declare it's type
> ... ?  [Linked Data Platform core]
> >> 
> >> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/77
> >> 
> >> Raised by: Roger Menday
> >> On product: Linked Data Platform core
> >> 
> >> 
> >> It is maybe the case that a number of the requirements in the 
> spec should maybe considered as best practice only. For example, in 
> section 4.1.5:
> >> 
> >> "LDPRs MUST use the predicate rdf:type to represent the concept of 
type."
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Arnaud said on this issue :
> >> "You probably remember that the Member Submission contained quite
> a bit of requirements that fell in the category of best practices. 
> This one is still there and you could argue that it should be moved 
> to the Deployment Guide along with the rest that we sent that way."
> > 
> > What else would you want it to be?
> > Would you want it to be something that implies rdf:type relation?
> > 
> > Henry
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > Social Web Architect
> > http://bblfish.net/
> > 
> > 
>