Re: addressing old comments from Erik W

Annette, thank you very much!

Based on your comments we updated the table Bernadette created to follow 
the open comments on the tracker: 
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comment_tracker_status.

Regarding LC-3051 we think Erik's comments were before this version, 
where he was talking about BP8 "Provide versioning information" [1] and 
BP 18 "vocabulary versioning" [2] and this BP was removed. Does you 
comment regard that or another thing?

Thank you! Kind regards,
Bernadette, Caroline and Newton

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150625/#VersioningInfo
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150625/#VersioningVocabularies

On 03/03/16 17:24, Annette Greiner wrote:
> Hi folks,
> Further to the agenda item of closing old DWBP comments, I've collated 
> the comments from Erik Wilde so that we can discuss them. My thoughts 
> on each are added in bold.
> -Annette
>
> LC-3061
>
> 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?
>
> *Not addressed. Something to consider adding to the doc, if it’s stable.*
>
> LC-3059
>
> 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.
>
> *Partially addressed. We don’t talk about fragment identifiers. I 
> suggest we add it. This relates to LC-3058 and LC-3051*
>
> LC-3057
>
> "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".
>
> *Not addressed. We mention URIs and conneg in the API versioning BP, 
> but not in the discussion of multiple formats. I suggest we add it.*
>
> LC-3058
>
> "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).
>
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Best Practice 12: Use persistent URIs as 
> identifiers within datasets 
> (https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#identifiersWithinDatasets)addresses this 
> comments.
>
> *Not addressed. Actually that BP doesn’t address the issue raised.And 
> that BP confuses fragment identifiers with reused URIs to refer to 
> entities.*
>
> LC-3060
>
> 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.
>
> LC-3052
>
> when it comes to versioning, i am always recommending to focus on
> openness and extensibility and have robust and well-defined models for
> those (this almost always requires well-defined processing models for
> data). this often avoids the need for versioning, which when done badly
> will be a breaking change.
>
> when it comes to versioning, it is important to distinguish between
> breaking and non-breaking versioning changes. this comes down to the
> comment above: good openness and extensibility makes it easier to have
> non-breaking versioning, which helps tremendously in decentralized
> ecosystems.
>
> *Addressed: We now have a BP “Avoid breaking changes to your API”*
>
> LC-3051
>
> what is the difference between "Best Practice 8" and "Best Practice
> 18" (reuse vocabularies)? it seems that they are very similar, and if 
> there indeed is a
> subtle difference, maybe create one practice that spans both, or make it
> more clear what the difference is?
>
> *Still an issue: We now havea BP “use standardized terms”, which talks 
> about standards for nonURIs, like country codes, and also URIs, like 
> for acoustic tracking systems. We also have a BP “use persistent URIs 
> as identifiers within datasets”.*
>
>
> -- 
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>