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

seems to do the job

+1


Kind regards,

Miel Vander Sande
Researcher Semantic Web - Linked Open Data
Multimedia Lab
Ghent University - iMinds
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Electronics and Information Systems

Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201,
B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium
T: +32 9 33 14893



On 06 Jul 2013, at 23:42, Cody Burleson 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