Re: "Basic profile" terminology ?

On 18/06/12 17:09, Erik.Wilde@emc.com wrote:
> hello olivier.
>
> On 2012-06-18 8:07 , "Olivier Berger" <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
> wrote:
>> 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 ?
>
> thanks for raising that issue, and you're right that this is an important
> one. i am convinced (and you'll see https://gist.github.com/2927644
> converging towards this point) that the most important question we will
> have to answer is whether we're targeting our design at the data in a
> back-end, or at a "service surface". i think we should aim for the latter,
> because that allows loose coupling. if we go that route, then /basic
> profile/ would be more of a service layer, and not so much the data layer
> itself. but it still remains to be see where we're headed with this.

dret - could you explain this some more?  I may understand you point, I 
may not ... I can't tell yet :-) The word "service" has been used for so 
long, in so many places. Loose coupling to me tends away from describing 
interaction models (maybe too much RPC background on my part from long 
ago!).

The gist seems to be talking about both describing the service and the 
actual interaction with the service.

There is a continuum from a service model (maybe better said as ways to 
describe, store and publish service descriptions and their interactions) 
to "data publishing".  "Linked Data" emphasis the data publishing end of 
the continuum.

The submission UCR (2.3) talks about the data in the applications - 
"people, projects, customer-reported problems and needs" - and 
interaction between tools.

I do think that the most general service interaction description case is 
too ambitious for this WG in the time scale, if nothing else because of 
the lack of material to build on.  The list of WG deliverables covers 
the building blocks which I read as a step on the journey, not the 
journey itself.  Is that understanding correct?

 Andy

Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 09:23:13 UTC