Re: issue-34 example

On 22 Jan 2013, at 05:04, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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. 

Yes, both are very important. But I would suggest that people join the 
WebID  and RWW  Community Groups to discuss these issues further.

  http://www.w3.org/community/webid/
  http://www.w3.org/community/rww/

If enough people are serious about getting something done participate,
then it should be possible to get some formal framework going in the RWW
CG such as the one here to make progress possible. ( The WebID 
group  has some of that being also an Incubator Group, and is
already very far along in its work. ).  

Those would be at least places to see what the bigger picture looks like
in view of perhaps proposing some other WGs, or in fact discovering issues
that do need to be taken into account here.

 
> --
> 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.
> > 
> > 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/