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

Re: Why is all discussion going on on the restricted list? (fwd Re: A modest attempt to re-open ISSUE-20)

From: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:26:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CALvhUEXefUiYPBRCrcR3czXva0AR-M88qq6gpLDFc+-GrkGSaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-ldp@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> IP issues related to contributions from external parties are easier to
> track when these contributions are channeled through a separate list from
> the one used by the WG. This is what has led to the current set up. I
> understand that the lack of consistency on how this is done across W3C can
> be confusing.
>

- When one posts the first time to W3C one has to agree to some terms on a
Web page before the mail is forwarded to the list, could the required IP
stuff be added there?
- Even if you think that for IP reasons its better to keep the wg list
closed, couldn't still most of the discussions be on this list? Or how is
it suppose to happen, a non member starts a topic here and the the wg
discusses this on the other list (maybe afer a list member saw the question
and posted a link on that list) and at the end the chair posts an answer
here (maybe just a link to the other discussion).

I agree that consistency across W3C would be good. And I hope this
consistency would be achieved on the side of openness. As you could see I'm
not the only one who's rather disappointed about the current approach.


> Many if not all of the WG members are following this list. If you sent
> specific feedback or questions for which you expected a reply and didn't,
> please, point those out.
>

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2013Jan/0003.html wasn't
strictly a question yet I would like to have known if the WG thinks the
direction of triples does matter in LDP.

Cheers,
Reto

>
> Regards.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - LDP WG chair
>
>
>
>
> From:        Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@apache.org>
> To:        public-ldp@w3.org,
> Date:        03/14/2013 12:41 AM
> Subject:        Why is all discussion going on on the restricted list?
> (fwd Re: A  modest attempt to re-open ISSUE-20)
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> I like the W3C for its discussion to be so open. For example I like to be
> able not to just follow the tag discussion but also to be able to
> participate if I think that I have something relevant to say.
>
> Why is the ldp discussion mostly going on on a list where non-member
> cannot post? The public list is very low activity and non of the posts this
> year got an answer.
>
> Below my latest unsuccessful post on the other list.
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <*reto@apache.org*<reto@apache.org>>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Henry Story <*henry.story@bblfish.net*<henry.story@bblfish.net>>
> wrote:
>
> On 13 Mar 2013, at 10:40, Andy Seaborne <*andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com*<andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 13/03/13 07:10, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> >> Henry,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Henry Story <*henry.story@bblfish.net*<henry.story@bblfish.net>
> >> <mailto:*henry.story@bblfish.net* <henry.story@bblfish.net>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>    The abstract syntax  specificiation allows for relative URLs:
> >>    *http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#rdf-documents*<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#rdf-documents>
> >>
> >>
> >> This section is about serialization; it explicitly says "concrete
> syntaxes".
> >> On the other hand, the definition of IRI for the graph model
> >>
> >> *http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-iri*<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-iri>
> >>
> >> explicitly says "IRIs in the RDF abstract syntax MUST be absolute".
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > A syntax may allow a relative URI but that's in a document and a
> document has a base URI.  The relative URI is relative to some base URI.
>  Relative URI have a role in syntax
> >
> > RFC 3986 makes it clear:
> >
> > [[
> > 5.1.  Establishing a Base URI
> >
> >   The term "relative" implies that a "base URI" exists against which
> >   the relative reference is applied.  Aside from fragment-only
> >   references (Section 4.4), relative references are only usable when a
> >   base URI is known.
> > ]]
>
> And indeed they are: when you POST content the server will know what
> URIs the relative ones are referring to, once he has created the resource.
>
> IIUC, the server will know but the producer of the RDF serialization does
> not. So what is effectively serialized is not actually RDF but a pseudo RDF
> supporting relative URIs that can only be serialized in those RDF
> serializations implicitly supporting this. I think not letting the client
> deal with the RDF on the abstract syntax level is quite a severe limitation.
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 11:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:10 UTC