Re: ( LC-2914)

Dear Eric, Yves, all,

Thanks for reviewing my comments. I'm happy with the decided resolution.

Kind regards,
Reto




On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 12:28 AM, <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>  Dear Reto Gmür ,
>
> The Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group has reviewed the comments you
> sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Linked Data Platform 1.0
> published on 11 Mar 2014. Thank you for having taken the time to review the
> document and to send us comments!
>
> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
> been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html.
>
> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
> public-ldp-comments@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 5 April
> 2014.
> In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution
> for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus
> cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal
> objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition
> of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.
>
> Thanks,
>
> For the Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group,
> Eric Prud'hommeaux
> Yves Lafon
> W3C Staff Contacts
>
>  1.
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2014Mar/0000.html
>  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldp-20140311/
>
>
> =====
>
> Your comment on 5.1 Introduction:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've notice that the latest published version suggest using RDF formats
> >
> > that support multiple named graphs. For the net-worth example it
> > suggests
> > using "one named graph for the net worth resource and then two others
> > for
> > asset and liability containers".
> >
> > I am irritated by this recommendation. First the specification mandates
> >
> > the possibility to serialize as turtle which does not currently support
> >
> > multiple named graphs.
> >
> > But more importantly I don't see the reason of this splitting of the
> > information into many graphs and it seems to significantly restrict the
> >
> > possibilities to implement LDP Servers.
> >
> > The suggested three graph do not seem to represent three different
> > information sources with thus potentially contradictory statements. So
> > in
> > this situation there is typically no quotation-use case with provenance
> >
> > that must be preserved. Grouping into different graphs what can be
> > safely
> > expressed in one graph seems to deny the expressive power of RDF and
> > suggesting that the grouping of triples into different graphs has a
> > significance beyond provenance.
> >
> > With the previous published version it was possible to have an LDP
> > compliant server backed by a single graph. This would be my choice of
> > implementation if the data has a single provenance and the access
> > restrictions are the same for all the triples. This change in the new
> > version seems however to mandate implementation to be based on different
> >
> > graphs for the different resources.
> >
> > In my opinion this is a significant loss of flexibility. I would like
> > for
> > simple implementations based on one graph to be possible. It can also be
> >
> > useful for an implementation to be based on multiple graphs representing
> >
> > different provenances or confidentiality but containing descriptions of
> >
> > larger and possibly overlapping sets of resources. With the latter
> > approach the resource description accessed through LDP would contain
> > more
> > or less triples depending on my access rights and the sources I've
> > decided
> > to trust.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-2914):
> The WG decided to remove references to named graphs by removing "named" in
> terminology section, removing paragraph in examples, and removing sentence
> in section 5.2.3.4 and 5.2.4.2
> See http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-04-15#resolution_3
>
>
> ----
>
>
>