Re: Comment on Section 4.8

Hi Leigh,

You should be happy to know that as a follow up to your email, an issue 
[Issue-42] was formally raised and closed with the following resolution:

"remove section 4.8 from the ldp spec and move it to the deployment guide 
- it is a best practice "

[Issue-42] https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/42

Thanks for your feedback.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


leigh.dodds@gmail.com wrote on 12/11/2012 09:03:56 AM:

> From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
> To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, 
> Cc: public-ldp@w3.org
> Date: 12/11/2012 09:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Comment on Section 4.8
> Sent by: leigh.dodds@gmail.com
> 
> 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 beendone 
[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
>