W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: forms, direction, query, etc …

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:25:18 -0800
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7EC6A4B1.C01633E5-ON88257ABD.0015B8D9-88257ABD.00184A25@us.ibm.com>
Please, Kingsley. quit repeating yourself all the time. I guarantee you 
that this is not a productive way of communicating with others. You're 
just turning people off. Seriously.

For what it's worth the charter goes beyond referencing TimBL's meme as 
you like to call it, again and again, ad nauseam. It also states that "The 
starting point for this group is the W3C Submission Linked Data Basic 
Profile 1.0." This submission doesn't rely on SPARQL and I think it would 
be a mistake to make LDP any different, from that point of view.

IBM has successfully integrated with technologies like Sharepoint with 
minimal effort thanks to the simplicity of what's described in the 
submission. The more we require of LDP implementations the lesser the 
adoption will be.

Note that the charter does refer to SPARQL. It reads:

How to integrate with SPARQL, including how to find a SPARQL endpoint 
serving data for a particular resource? (To be coordinated with SPARQL 
community/WG.)

So, how LDP relates to SPARQL is clearly in scope, but that hardly means 
LDP should depend on it.

Now if, as you disclosed in another post, you're just playing devil's 
advocate to make a point about references to Tim's definition of Linked 
Data which I know you disagree with, I will have to ask that you take that 
to another forum.

Thank you.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote on 11/20/2012 06:58:54 PM:

> From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 11/20/2012 06:59 PM
> Subject: Re: forms, direction, query, etc …
> 
> On 11/20/12 8:24 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> You guys should feel free to develop any proposals you'd like but, 
> while I'm happy for the WG to weigh in on this in view of an actual 
> proposal, I have to say that this seems quite far from what I think 
> this WG is chartered to do. 
> 
> Putting aside the reliance on SPARQL for which several people have 
> already raised concerns I don't think developing an elaborate query 
> mechanism is on our plate, at least not in this version of the spec.
> The LDP draft spec makes a very specific claim [1] about its 
> interpretation of what Linked Data means. The choosen meaning 
> explicitly introduces SPARQL. Note, SPARQL and RDF are given equal 
> weighting in TimBL's meme [2].
> 
> Clarity matters when you produce specs. 
> 

> 
> Again, I don't mean to stop you. Please, feel free to make a 
> proposal. I just want to share with you my concern that this may be 
> out of scope so that if you see me pressing this point later on you 
> aren't surprised. Consider that a fair warning. :-) 
> 
> Your concern should be triangulated back to the very basis for the 
> LDP effort. SPARQL is part of the deal at this juncture, based on 
> the the route that's been chosen thus far. 
> 
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/#intro -- 
> note you have SPARQL listed 
> 2. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html -- note point #3
> 
> Kingsley 
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote on 11/20/2012 02:04:26 
AM:
> 
> > From: Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com> 
> > To: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>, 
> > Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org> 
> > Date: 11/20/2012 02:05 AM 
> > Subject: Re: forms, direction, query, etc … 
> > 
> > 
> > >> Henry opened up some discussion at the end of our phone 
> > conference today, regarding his proposal about forms and query. 
> > >> 
> > >> I've got to say that I thought Henry's proposal [1] was really
> > >> elegant.
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > >> I also think that it is a solution for a problem that is very 
> > relevant to LDP. 
> > >> 
> > >> If it has a flaw, it that a client needs to be SPARQL aware - 
> > which I don't think will help uptake. I made my proposal on this 
> > topic at [2]. I'll freely admit that it does not have the elegance 
> > of Henry's use of SPARQL to drive interaction from the client, but, 
> > what it does have is simplicity! It is sort of like "duck-typed 
> > creation" .... it doesn't offer anything elaborate (repeated, 
> > options, etc.) at the moment. 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the reminder for this subthread which was raised 
initially in
> > > the discussion about Issue-33... but... what exactly is the point 
that
> > > Henry was after during today's meeting ?
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure it is strictly related to issue 33 but maybe more to 
other
> > > issues about discovery of the expected POST content, etc.
> > > 
> > > Would you mind clarifying, and maybe propose a particular open issue 
we
> > > should tackle during the next meeting where Henry's proposal would 
help
> > > (providing that we got rid of the "opening raised issues phase" 
before
> > > ;) ?
> > 
> > hi Olivier, 
> > 
> > I am happy to have a go and summarise the state of this topic. 
> > This could be a starting point for discussions at the next meeting. 
> > 
> > Roger
> > 
> 

> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen 
> Founder & CEO 
> OpenLink Software 
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 04:25:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:33 UTC