Re: "Basic profile" terminology ?

Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu> wrote on 06/18/2012 
11:07:07 AM:

> From: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 06/18/2012 11:11 AM
> Subject: "Basic profile" terminology ?
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I'd like to ask about the choice of terminology for "basic profile".
> 
> I'm not sure I've seen an explanation about this.
> 
Since I lived through this choice of names, let me try to explain it.  We 
originally thought it would be ideal to have it named something simple 
like "Linked Data" but we (the member submission writers) didn't feel we 
had the right to that name and it didn't distinguish it from Tim 
Berners-Lee's definition of Linked Data.  We wanted to convey the message 
that we were not trying to invent anything new, just guidance on what you 
do when you pull these specs together for the use cases we outlined.

Basic Profile was chosen based on its prior usage in other similar 
contexts [1], [2].  One could envision a number of additive but possible 
independent concepts that could be adopted, take basic profile resources 
as the base, add containers, then possibly constraints/validation, access 
control, etc

> I think it would be great to convey some meaning for such important
> conceps as resources or containers, as standardised by the LDP WB, but
> at the moment I'm a bit dubious about "basic profile" (or it's just
> meant to be changed, to differentiate original submission from the end
> result specs ?).
> 
> Can we envision a s/basic profile/linked data/ for these in the future ?
> 
It think we may learn more what it will look like and be called as we 
craft the use cases and requirements. 

[1] - http://www.ws-i.org/profiles/basicprofile-1.1.html
[2] - http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-SMIL2-20050107/smil-basic.html

Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645

Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 13:30:36 UTC