Re: Examples in the LDP primer


I was thinking about what this might look like in the spec and how other
sections might benefit or need to change.  What this has led me to is to
think more about best practices or guidelines at the moment, perhaps we can
sketch out what a section might look like there and can determine if it is
unnatural there or fits nicely.  It seems like a logical fit in the BP&G.

- Steve Speicher

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Roger Menday

> Regarding what the Spec says about Things vs. Documents-about-Things ... I
> think we are little vague.
> Maybe this is intentional, but my feeling is that it would be better if we
> were more transparent.
> Roger
> On 14 Dec 2013, at 15:29, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote:
> 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 <>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] -

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 14:07:46 UTC