- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:18:11 -0400
- To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 05/28/2013 06:41 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote on 05/22/2013 11:00:35 AM: > > > ... > > I may be wrong, > > but I'm not sure that people are desperately in need of such a feature > > and if yes, it would always be possible to add it in the next version > > of the spec, with very little cost. > > So, in my effort to keep us on track regarding our schedule I've been > looking at issues we can take off of the table. Unfortunately I don't > think this is a possibility here. > If we don't have membershipPredicate in LDP 1.0 there is no way we can > add it later without breaking backwards compability. A server would have > to keep using rdf:member or break clients that expect it. I don't understand why adding it later would break anything. It would be a plain conservative extension, with backward compatibility. > > > ... > > Of course, if I had to vote on keeping or not this feature, I would > > say 0 (I can live with it). But still, that makes the spec both more > > complex and difficult to understand, while it should be simple and > > easy. > > Good. :-) We're going to need some willingness to compromise on all > sides to get us moving forward. I still think it's easier and better to drop it for now. Postponing to the next version is _also_ an acceptable and valid compromise. I don't really want someone having to write "Linked Data Platform: The Good Parts" ;-) Alexandre. > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group >
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 13:19:33 UTC