Action Required:

Team,

Please be advised that I am now in the process of editing some of the best
practices that were thrown into the Deployment Guide (now to be LDP Best
Practices and Guidelines). In order to spare you the trouble of having to
review too much at once, I'd like to provide my edits in small (more easily
digestible) nuggets.

Here is one that we can start with. Your "action required" is to review and
approve (+1) or comment on the following:

*Predicate URIs should be HTTP URLs
*
*BEFORE:*

This was removed from the spec:
>
> 4.1.7 Predicate URIs used in LDPR representations SHOULD be HTTP URLs.
> These predicate URIs MUST identify LDPRs whose representations are
> retrievable. LDPR servers SHOULD provide an RDF Schema !RDF-SCHEMA
> representation of these predicates.
>
> As part of the discussion around ISSUE-9 it was seen as most likely this
> should be implementation guidance.
>
*
AFTER:*

URIs are used to uniquely identify resources and URLs are used to locate
> resources on the Web. That is to say that a URL is expected to resolve to
> an actual resource, which can be retrieved from the host. A URI, on the
> other hand, may also be a URL, but it does not have to be; it may refer to
> something that has no retrievable representation.
>
> One of the fundamental ideas behind Linked Data is that the things
> referred to by HTTP URIs can actually be looked up ("dereferenced"). It is
> therefor ideal that predicate URIs identify LDPRs with representations that
> are retrievable. LDP servers should at least provide [RDF-SCHEMA]
> representations of these predicates where possible.
>
> Of course, it is also a common practice to reuse properties from
> vocabularies that you don't own. In this case, you typically have no
> control over the result when attempting to dereference the URI. For this
> reason, publishers who wish to make their vocabularies useful for linking
> data should strive to provide a retrievable representation of the
> properties their vocabularies define. Consequently, implementers are also
> expected to use this standard as a benchmark for which to judge the
> efficacy of a vocabulary's use for linking data.
>


-- 
Cody Burleson