- From: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:48:37 -0500
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > > On 13 Feb 2013, at 21:22, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I had my fingers near the original member submission vocabulary and >> was easy for me to tweak for what we current have in the spec [2]. >> >> I propose that we close ISSUE-47 with the vocabulary at [2]. >> >> I also propose the editors maintain this, along with the spec, to >> ensure consistency between the two. >> >> [1] - http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/ldbp.rdf >> [2] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.ttl > > +1 > > It may be helpful to have a LDPR class and have LDPC be > a subclass of it. I think we have agreement on this, and it > helps understanding. Also a pointer to the spec would probably > be very useful for people coming across this document by > following links. > Maybe useful but the spec currently doesn't define the class ldp:Resource so adding it to the vocab now would be premature. It would be good to understand why we need it before we add it (what problem is it solving?). How would one point to the spec? rdfs:seeAlso ? I would expect that eventually http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp would direct to an HTML rep (when requested) and the spec doesn't feel like the right thing but a simple HTML page perhaps generated from the vocab document. Is there some W3C best practice on this? >> >> -- >> - Steve Speicher >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > -- - Steve
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 18:49:10 UTC