Action Required 2: Review best practice covering Issue 77

Team

In the last face-to-face meeting, we noted that we should remove the
following statement from the specification and instead include it as a best
practice:

"LDPRs MUST use the predicate rdf:type to represent the concept of type."

I have now included that in the new LDP Best Practices and Guidelines
document (in-progress) and am including that section below for your review.
Please review it as stated and either approve (+1) or provide comments.

2.2 Use and include the predicate rdf:type to represent the concept of type
in LDPRs

It is often very useful to know the type (class) of an LDPR, though it is
not essential to work with the interaction capabilities that LDP offers.
Still, to make your data more useful in the broadest context, you should
explicitly define the type when possible and appropriate and you should use
the rdf:type predicate defined by [RDF-SCHEMA] when doing so.

This provides a way for clients to easily determine the type of a resource
without having to perform additional processing or make additional HTTP
requests. For example, clients that cannot infer the type because they do
not support inferencing can benefit from this explicit declaration.
Example 1: Turtle With Explicit Declaration of rdf:type

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
@prefix contact: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#>.

<http://www.w3.org/People/EM/contact#me>
  rdf:type contact:Person;
  contact:fullName "Eric Miller";
  contact:mailbox <mailto:em@w3.org>;
  contact:personalTitle "Dr.".



-- 
Cody Burleson