Fwd: Transition request: LDP to Proposed Recommendation

This might be of interest to us.

All the best

Lisa 




Subject : Transition request: LDP to Proposed Recommendation
============ Forwarded message ============

On behalf of the LDP WG I'd like to request the transition of the Linked Data Platform specification to Proposed Recommendation. 
 
Title: Linked Data Platform 1.0 
 
Abstract: 
This document describes a set of best practices and simple approach for a read-write Linked Data architecture, based on HTTP access to web resources that describe their state using the RDF data model.  
 
Editor's draft: 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html 
 
Estimated publication date: 13 of November 2014 
 
This is not a delta specification. 
 
Record of the decision to request the transition: 
http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-10-20#resolution_3 
 
Report of Important Changes to the Document since the 31 July 2014 
    - No longer AT RISK: Indirect Containers, JSON-LD and Accept-Post 
    - AT RISK that was removed: client should requirement to handle server-initiated paging 
    - Improvements to sections about LDP-server-managed triples and client requested interaction models 
 
Evidence that the document satisfies Group's Requirements: 
The WG published its Use Cases and Requirements as a WG Note that was last updated on 13 March 2014: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-ldp-ucr-20140313/ 
 
The LDP specification has since then gone through several Last Calls and Candidate Recommendation without anyone reporting failure in satisfying those requirements. 
 
Evidence Dependencies With Other Groups Met: 
Over the course of the passed two years the LDP WG has had many exchanges with the stakeholders of related technologies, including JSON-LD, HTTP, the "REST community" and the "Semantic Web" community, which was reinforced by direct participation from various members of those communities. 
Some of these exchanges took place on the public comment list public-ldp-comments@w3.org and discussion list public-ldp@w3.org and are visible in the corresponding archives: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/ 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/ 
 
Evidence that the document has received Wide Review: 
The specification has gone through no fewer than a total of 3 rounds of Last Call and one round of Candidate Recommendation. The various rounds of Last Calls were caused by public comments that led the WG to make significant changes in response to the comments. 
 
The WG has recorded the comments received and their disposition: 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ 
and https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDP_LC3_Comments 
 
Evidence that Issues Have Been Formally Addressed: 
The WG has addressed a total of 98 issues which were recorded in the LDP Tracker: 
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues 
 
Objections: 
There are no Formal Objections on the LDP specification. 
 
Features marked as "at risk": 
There are no remaining features are risk. 
 
Implementation Information: 
The WG aimed to have at least 2 independent implementations of every MUST in the spec and has met that goal. A test suite was developed and implementation reports from the WG members and community compiled in a comprehensive report: 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/tests/reports/ldp.html 
 
Patent Disclosures: 
No patents have been disclosed. 
 
Regards. 
--
 Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM Software Group