Re: some comments on the DWBP draft

Dear Erik,

we are wondering if you had a chance to read the last emails we sent 
you, the one bellow and the other entitled "Re: comments regarding 
versioning".

We will publish the final draft of DWBP document, so it would be great 
to receive your comments before that since you contributed with 
important feedback.

Thank you! Kind regards,
BP Editors

On 16/03/16 08:12, Caroline Burle wrote:
> Hello Erik!
>
> Thank you very much for your comments. After discussing them with the 
> group during the F2F meeting, we answer bellow.
>
> Kind regards,
> Bernadette, Caroline and Newton
> BP Editors
>
> - "Best Practice 14: Provide data in multiple formats" might want to 
> say if that should be done by different URIs, or one URI and HTTP 
> conneg. that's a very typical question publishers have, so it should 
> be mentioned at the very least, even if the answer is "we have no 
> specific recommendation either way".
>
> The Best Practice 22: "Serving data and resources with different 
> formats"[1] was created to address this comment.
>
> - "Best Practice 14: Provide data in multiple formats" should say that 
> for fragment identifiers to be consistent across formats, care is 
> needed to make sure that this is the case (as much as possible, 
> depending on the formats and their features).
>
> - generally speaking, i am wondering why the terms hypertext or 
> hypermedia are not even mentioned in the spec. isn't that what data on 
> the web ideally should be, linkable and linked? 
> https://github.com/dret/webdata#one-star-linkable and 
> https://github.com/dret/webdata#four-star-linked are core principles 
> for good web data. *linkable* means more than just URIs. it also 
> means, for example, to provide meaningful and robust fragment 
> identifiers for others to link to. *linked* means to use URIs and to 
> specifically avoid other kinds of (often non-globally scoped) 
> identifiers, so that links don't break when taken out of context.
>
> There is a action [2] to Phil Archer to add a line on fragment 
> identifiers in Best Practice 15: "Provide data in multiple formats".
>
> - best practices 24 and 27 kind of conflict. one important idea of 
> REST is to avoid versioning, and having versioned URIs is a pretty 
> certain sign of bad design smell when it comes to media types and API 
> design.
>
> We addressed that on Best Practice 10: "Avoid Breaking Changes to Your 
> API"[3]. Are you okay with it?
>
> - regarding best practice 30, i am wondering if 
> https://github.com/dret/I-D/blob/master/sunset-header/draft-wilde-sunset-header-00.txt 
> is something that might be worth mentioning in some form. this is 
> currently a pre-I-D draft, but maybe the general idea of communicating 
> resource availability is relevant for DWBP?
>
> We very much appreciate your suggestion, since it is a draft we think 
> we shouldn't reference it directly. However, it would be great if you 
> could review the Best Practice 29: "Update the status of 
> identifiers"[4] and let us know if you think some content of your 
> draft might fit there.
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#Conneg
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/265
> [3] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataPreservation
> [4] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#provideVersioningInfo
>
> On 26/06/15 03:06, Erik Wilde wrote:
>> hello.
>>
>> some comments on the current DWBP draft:
>>
>> - "Best Practice 14: Provide data in multiple formats" might want to 
>> say if that should be done by different URIs, or one URI and HTTP 
>> conneg. that's a very typical question publishers have, so it should 
>> be mentioned at the very least, even if the answer is "we have no 
>> specific recommendation either way".
>>
>> - "Best Practice 14: Provide data in multiple formats" should say 
>> that for fragment identifiers to be consistent across formats, care 
>> is needed to make sure that this is the case (as much as possible, 
>> depending on the formats and their features).
>>
>> - generally speaking, i am wondering why the terms hypertext or 
>> hypermedia are not even mentioned in the spec. isn't that what data 
>> on the web ideally should be, linkable and linked? 
>> https://github.com/dret/webdata#one-star-linkable and 
>> https://github.com/dret/webdata#four-star-linked are core principles 
>> for good web data. *linkable* means more than just URIs. it also 
>> means, for example, to provide meaningful and robust fragment 
>> identifiers for others to link to. *linked* means to use URIs and to 
>> specifically avoid other kinds of (often non-globally scoped) 
>> identifiers, so that links don't break when taken out of context.
>>
>> - best practices 24 and 27 kind of conflict. one important idea of 
>> REST is to avoid versioning, and having versioned URIs is a pretty 
>> certain sign of bad design smell when it comes to media types and API 
>> design.
>>
>> - regarding best practice 30, i am wondering if 
>> https://github.com/dret/I-D/blob/master/sunset-header/draft-wilde-sunset-header-00.txt 
>> is something that might be worth mentioning in some form. this is 
>> currently a pre-I-D draft, but maybe the general idea of 
>> communicating resource availability is relevant for DWBP?
>>
>> thanks and cheers,
>>
>> dret.
>>
>