W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Examples in the LDP primer

From: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:29:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAOEr1mJp3aLNsfrz95y+Y0uNSM7tLsOEYh1wHyr2NJWeZGkZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Hi Henry,

First of all, the examples in the primer will definitely change to reflect
the changes that we are discussing in the WG at the moment but we will wait
until we get the WG consensus and whatever resolutions are incorporated to
the spec. If we try to adapt examples while the discussions are ongoing,
that would leads to too much extra work.

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote:
>
>  >  <bugs/> a bt:BugCollection;
> >       bt:hasBugs <1>, ...., <300000>.
>
> [[ aside for Primer writers:
> minor tweak. Your <1>, ...., <30000> are information resources, so they
> are documents. And so your
> repository is one of bug reports. Bug Reports are things I imagine can
> change from being bugs, to being feature
> requests etc... Bugs themselves on the other hand can be duplicates of
> other bugs. So you can have less bugs than
> bug reports.


We discussed this a lot in the mailing list and the first examples of the
primer do not make the distinction between the information resource and the
bug by intention and not because we are confused. It was to keep the
examples as simpler as possible. I think everyone in the WG understands
that the BugReport/Bug or ProductDescription/Product are not the same thing
and they can have properties that might have different values for creator,
createdData, licence, copyrights, etc.

However, the idea was not to make the examples look more complex than
necessary specially to the Web developers who would like to get a grasp of
LDP and are not aware about this http range 14 issue. The idea was to
introduce the distinction between the information resource and the thing it
represent in a later example (Example 3.1) in the primer. As you think the
information resource and the thing it represent should always be given
separate identifiers and that distinction should always be made explicit,
there are set of people who think it can be kept simpler when
that distinction is not very important in their use cases.  For example, in
the URLs-in-Data [1], they say that it is a decision of the publisher to
decide how distinct those two are and model accordingly. Either way, once
we have the consensus on three or two new types of containers, we will
organize the examples in the primer accordingly and the examples covering
SimpleContainer will provide a good starting point. If you still think that
all the examples in the primer should make that distinction explicit, we
can do a straw-poll in the mailing list or proposal in a telco and modify
the spec according to the result.


>  Furthermore bt:hasBugs sounds like a relation from one to many, whereas
> in RDF it is a relation from
> one to one - so the relation should really be bt:hasBugReport .


We agree on this and the property used in the Primer "hasBug" from day one
not "hadBugs".

Best Regards,
Nandana

[1] - http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/#landing-pages
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 15:30:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:54 UTC