Re: Updated Protocol WD

Hi Rob,

first and foremost: thanks:-)

I was not sure whether you prefer the comments on github or the mailing list; I choose the latter.

- is it is o.k., and conformant to our specification, that a server implements only the features in this specification, or whether we require that the server implements LDP 1.0 entirely, ie, clients may rely on features not listed in this document (e.g., non-basic Containers). In other words, do we want to define some sort of a profile of a general OA server? Personally, I think it is the former, ie, we can have OA servers that work along LDP principles, are compatible with LDP, but do not implement the whole of LDP (although I am not sure the LDP WG would like that, we will have to check with them). That being said, we will have to be very precise then on what are the required features, which are the SHOULD-s and which are the MUST-s.

(An example for the minor things we will have to specify: the LDP Paging doc[1] has a SHOULD for max-member-count; do we want to use a MUST for an OA server or keep with SHOULD? The paging spec allows for paging on individual resources, e.g., in terms of number of triples or size in KB; do we want OA servers to allow for paging on individual annotations, or not? etc…)

One particular issue is the role of turtle vs. JSON-LD. In my understanding, the LDP server is based on Turtle as a default, and you have to explicitly specify JSON LD as a preferred format in an Accept header if you want JSON-LD and not Turtle. This may be a (minor) drag on us because, I would expect, most of our constituency would rely on JSON-LD rather than Turtle and a common mistake might be for implementation to forget about that (and get back Turtle that they cannot parse). I am not sure we can handle that if we want to be compatible, but I thought worth flagging the issue…

- We will have to find out what the status is of the LDP Paging[1] and PDP Patch documents[2]. It is a bit of a concern that [1] has been in Candidate Rec since mid-December; are we sure this will become a Rec? (I will ask around.)

- I am a bit worried about the complexity of LDP Patch[2]. The specification seems to be fairly complex, with its own Turtle-like patch language. This may go beyond what we need; maybe it is worth considering a stripped down version for the purposes of OA. As far as I could see, LDP allows the usage of any other patch language, it is not bound to [2], the patch format is specified in the content-type of the patch operation (looking at example 2 of [2])

Thanks again!

Ivan




[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-paging/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ldpatch/

> On 09 Apr 2015, at 21:46 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> As promised, an updated draft of the LDP based protocol specification for consideration:
> 
>     http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/
> 
> Comments encouraged :)
> 
> Rob
> 
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704