- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:49:08 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Cc: public-ldp@w3.org
>> 1. RDF types supported -- don't we need to support all the RDF types? > > I don't think so. For one thing, the list of RDF datatypes is > unbounded -- it's extensible. So that means we can't mandate they all > be supported, and does that mean we mandate none of them? The idea here > is to pick a reasonable set as a minimum that people can count on being > supported. +1 >> 2. Re. syntax, I think this is orthogonal to our concerns. > > It seems to me, one of the use cases is to be able to write a client > that you know will work with any server that conforms to this > specification. If we don't specify the RDF serialization to use, > people can't write clients like that. +1 Ashok, you might remember the discussions we had in R2RML around the syntax bits? Or, same on the WebID XG, it was again the seemingly so plain syntax issue (RDF/XML vs. RDFa vs Turtle) that caused quite some discussions. The syntax issue is - in terms of basic I14Y - a MUST, in my understanding. Nothing we need to discuss forever but we need to pin it down, upfront, ASAP. In addition, by embracing JSON we can establish I14Y in this area as well (cf [1]). Cheers, Michael [1] http://webofdata.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/json-http-data-links/ -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel.: +353 91 495730 WebID: http://sw-app.org/mic.xhtml#i On 18 Mar 2012, at 19:06, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 10:29 -0700, ashok malhotra wrote: >> That's a good comment, Dan! >> I had the opposite reaction re. the timing. Why do we have to wait till >> June to get start? Why can't we start next month? :-) > > As Ivan pointed out, it takes about 6 weeks after submitting it to the > AC for review, so... we're trying. > >> Re. the technical issues, the charter makes it clear that these are some >> possible issues and others may come up when the WG starts and some >> may get dropped. Nevertheless, I had a couple of comments on the issues: >> >> 1. RDF types supported -- don't we need to support all the RDF types? > > I don't think so. For one thing, the list of RDF datatypes is > unbounded -- it's extensible. So that means we can't mandate they all > be supported, and does that mean we mandate none of them? The idea here > is to pick a reasonable set as a minimum that people can count on being > supported. I note that OWL and RIF already did this; we might want to > start with that same list they used, or whatever ends up in in the > expected submission. > >> 2. Re. syntax, I think this is orthogonal to our concerns. > > It seems to me, one of the use cases is to be able to write a client > that you know will work with any server that conforms to this > specification. If we don't specify the RDF serialization to use, > people can't write clients like that. The server might only do RDF/XML > or only do RDFa or only do ntriples or only do Turtle or only do > JSON-LD, or maybe only do some proprietary RDF serialization. So, I > think we need to pick one as the required minimum if we want > out-of-the-box interoperability. > >> 6. Concurrency depends on the type of storage and other concerns > > I'm thinking of the kind of situation addressed by this bit: > > Because the update process involves getting a resource first, > and then modifying it and later putting it back on the server, > there is the possibility of a conflict (for example, another > client might have updated the resource since the GET action). To > mitigate this problem, Basic Profile implementations should use > the HTTP If-Match header and HTTP ETags to detect collisions. > > -- http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/basic-profile-linked-data/index.html > > It seems to me that's an important point that shouldn't be forgotten. > Perhaps I could explain that concern better. > >> So, I would remove the issue and add it to the para above that >> discusses authorization and authentication. >> All the best, Ashok > > Thanks for reviewing this so carefully (and on a Sunday!). I hope I've > adequately explained why we included these items.... > > -- Sandro > >> On 3/18/2012 10:18 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: >>> On 18 Mar 2012, at 13:10, Eric Prud'hommeaux<eric@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> * Dan Brickley<danbri@danbri.org> [2012-03-18 12:46-0400] >>>>> Quick iphone reply for now. Basically "what's the hurry?". The whole thing seems to be based on a magazine article that is rumoured to be a potential Submission to W3C. How did we jump from that to a proposed group already? >>>>> >>>>> Apologies if I've missed more context, >>>> The bulk of the context is the LEDP workshop >>>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/09/LinkedData/> >>>> at which the ~45 participants said they wanted a WG and some wanted to >>>> help with the Submission which IBM was working on. We promised to >>>> create a mailing list<mailto:public-ldp@w3.org> where we would float >>>> a proposed charter. >>>> >>>> The next natural step is to float that charter by the AC once we have >>>> a guage for how well it meets the community's needs. >>> Thanks! In that case role of the workshop, and details on consensus amongst its attendees, should be higher visibility in abstract/intro. Otherwise the motivation feels a bit weak. >>> >>> 'This Group addresses a need identified by ... who agreed ... and asked W3C to ..."? Etc >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 Mar 2012, at 12:13, Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> After various discussions, we've rewritten the Linked Data Platform >>>>>> (LDP) draft charter. New version is here: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter >>>>>> >>>>>> The diff is linked from there, but only the last few paragraphs >>>>>> (standard charter stuff) are the similar enough for the diff to be >>>>>> useful. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point, we're expecting to formally propose this to the W3C >>>>>> membership within a week or two, so please review it soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Sandro >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> -ericP >> > > >
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 05:49:36 UTC