W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Comment on Section 4.8

From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:03:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAC_nr_rihxNsrnY39BiCbCyUDA1kpJ=4MKJKca=sQNo5gNtzfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-ldp@w3.org
Hi Arnaud,

Thank for you for the feedback. Point taken about stable referencing!

Given your agreement on my suggested course of action, what's the next
step in getting this properly discussed by the WG? Presumably someone
will raise an issue?

Cheers,

L.

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> The motivation for this restriction to be the in the spec was that we (IBM)
> felt that this would 1) make it easier for people to ramp up using Linked
> Data by narrowing down the number of options they have to choose from , 2)
> increase interoperability.
>
> It was for the same reason that we had limited the number of datatypes one
> could use in section 4.1.9 [5]. After discussion at the face to face meeting
> we (the WG) decided to remove section 4.1.9 for essentially the same reasons
> you're giving [6]. Rather than simply dumping it though, we discussed the
> idea of putting into a deployment guide, which has since then been done [7].
>
> Given that, I think it would make sense for the WG to consider doing the
> same for section 4.8. [8]
>
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-ldp-20121025/#ldpr-4_1_9
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-11-01#resolution_5
> [7] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide
> [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-ldp-20121025/#common-properties
>
> Side note: when referencing a section in the spec it is better to use the
> URL that points to the specific version of the document you're refering to,
> such as [4] above. The URL you gave in [3] will actually stop working if
> that section is removed in a future version of the spec, leaving the mail
> archive with a broken link.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
>
>
> leigh.dodds@gmail.com wrote on 12/07/2012 08:43:16 AM:
>
>> From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
>> To: public-ldp@w3.org,
>> Date: 12/07/2012 08:50 AM
>> Subject: Comment on Section 4.8
>> Sent by: leigh.dodds@gmail.com
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This email revisits some comments which I raised previously [1, 2]
>> about the early working draft but which I don't feel have yet been
>> adequately been discussed. I'm referring specifically to Section 4.8,
>> Common Properties [3].
>>
>> It is clearly useful if people re-use existing properties where they
>> are applicable. It might also be useful to have some general guidance
>> on which properties are considered to be currently "best practice" or
>> are most widely deployed, etc.  However I don't think the LDP
>> specification is the place to do this. For two reasons:
>>
>> * This kind of guidance is best published by specific communities who
>> are seeking convergence around their data. Not on a blanket basis by a
>> W3C group. There needs to be space for these kinds of recommendations
>> to evolve and be widely discussed
>> * LDP is meant to be defining a platform for managing data. It should,
>> as far as possible, be agnostic to what data is being stored inside
>> it.
>>
>> A good example of community specific guidance around property usage
>> can be found in [4]. Personally I think thats more useful than a
>> simple picklist of properties.
>>
>> My other issue with the guidance as it stands is that it diverges from
>> current practice. For example:
>>
>> * rdfs:label is widely used as a default labelling property, its not
>> just used in vocabularies. Discouraging its use suggests that usage is
>> wrong; at the very least an alternative ought to be recommended
>> * There are occasions when using the old Dublin Core terms may be more
>> appropriate than the newer dcterms, see [4]
>> * The LDP specification recommends use of rdfs:range that are at odds
>> with their specification and common practice, e.g. dcterms:title and
>> dcterms:description both have a range of rdfs:Literal.
>>
>> I'd like to propose that Section 4.8 as it stands be removed and
>> perhaps replaced with some informative text recommending re-use of
>> vocabulary where it makes sense to do so.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> L.
>>
>> [1]. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Jun/0013.html
>> [2]. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Jul/0026.html
>> [3]. http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#common-properties
>> [4]. http://aims.fao.org/lode/bd
>>
>> --
>> Leigh Dodds
>> Freelance Technologist
>> Open Data, Linked Data Geek
>> t: @ldodds
>> w: ldodds.com
>> e: leigh@ldodds.com
>>



-- 
Leigh Dodds
Freelance Technologist
Open Data, Linked Data Geek
t: @ldodds
w: ldodds.com
e: leigh@ldodds.com
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 17:04:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 December 2012 17:04:26 GMT