Re: Action Required 2: Review best practice covering Issue 77

+1

Best Regards,
Nandana


On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>wrote:

> 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
>