Re: issue-34 example

I agree with Erik. Our goal for the first version of LDP isn't to solve 
all the problems one faces when trying to develop a Bug Tracker using 
Linked Data but simply to define a useful set of features which provides 
us with some added level of interoperability and a basis to build on.

Similarly, in a separate thread I wrote about OSLC's ResourceShape and the 
fact that I thought it was out of scope and Roger replied:

> I disagree. I think it is really important. If we want a generic 
> client (like Tabulator) it is essential. 
> I don't think we can honestly say we have satisfied our charter either. 

Just because something is important doesn't mean it is in scope of the 
current WG. Case in point: I haven't heard anyone claim that security and 
access control isn't important, yet it's not in scope.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


"Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote on 01/21/2013 07:41:54 AM:

> From: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
> To: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>, 
> Cc: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" 
> <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 01/21/2013 07:44 AM
> Subject: Re: issue-34 example
> 
> hello roger.
> 
> On 2013-01-21 16:22 , "Roger Menday" <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> 
wrote:
> >>indeed, a very bad typo.
> >> 
> >> "there may be constraints on payload, but defining and enforcing 
those
> >> should not be something LDP is concerned with."
> >I'm curious. I believe that LDP should be used by people developing Bug
> >Tracker APIs, Cloud Management APIs, Photo Management APIs, etc, etc, 
etc
> >- (using the widespread interpretation of the word "API") ... I think
> >these kind of scenarios are important. But, does anyone else see it 
that
> >way, or am I in the wrong group :) ?
> 
> you're most definitely not, but we're not in the business of developing
> Bug Tracker APIs, Cloud Management APIs, or Photo Management APIs. we're
> developing a foundation protocol, and each of those APIs should be able 
to
> take our protocol, and refine it into a more specialized domain 
protocols,
> if they want to. our only concern, though, is the generic protocol, so
> that all you could build would be the LDP equivalent of a "write-enabled
> feed reader".
> 
> i fully agree that all of the scenarios you listed are important, but 
all
> we need to do is make sure that we have extension points that the more
> refined protocols can be based on. in the end, a generic client should
> work against all services using LDP as the foundation, so that i can, 
for
> example, in one "LDP feed" see all my aggregated updates from my Bug
> Tracker, Cloud Management, and Photo Management services.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 
>