- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 08:03:52 -0700
- To: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
- Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF1B915BBE.212C7430-ON88257B7B.005284E6-88257B7B.0052C03E@us.ibm.com>
Sorry, I accidentally sent my message before I was done. I meant to add the following to the proposed description: While it might be useful to know the type of the LDPR it's not essential to work with the interaction capabilities that LDP is offering and therefore this is more of a best practice. I propose to remove this from the specification and add it to the Deployment Guide. Regards. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group From: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS To: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>, Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org> Date: 05/30/2013 08:00 AM Subject: Re: ldp-ISSUE-77 (types of LDPR ): why MUST a LDPR declare it's type ... ? [Linked Data Platform core] Hi Roger, It is important, especially that late in the process, to be as specific as possible when opening issues. As I said before I think the issue you raised is totally reasonable but as you entered it into the system you've made it much more general and less actionable. The issue shouldn't be entered as a question and shouldn't be open ended. Instead it should set what the problem is and include a proposal on how to address it. So, I suggest the following changes: Title: Requiring that an LDPR MUST declare its type is excessive Description: Section 4.1.5 of the specification states: "LDPRs MUST use the predicate rdf:type to represent the concept of type." -- Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote on 05/30/2013 02:38:35 AM: > From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> > To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, > Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org> > Date: 05/30/2013 02:39 AM > Subject: Re: ldp-ISSUE-77 (types of LDPR ): why MUST a LDPR declare > it's type ... ? [Linked Data Platform core] > > > I am just saying that it might be useful to know the type of the > LDPR - not disputing that - but it's not essential to work with the > interaction capabilities that LDP is offering and therefore it is > more of a best practice thing. > > Roger > > > > > On 30 May 2013, at 10:33, Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group > Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > > > >> ldp-ISSUE-77 (types of LDPR ): why MUST a LDPR declare it's type > ... ? [Linked Data Platform core] > >> > >> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/77 > >> > >> Raised by: Roger Menday > >> On product: Linked Data Platform core > >> > >> > >> It is maybe the case that a number of the requirements in the > spec should maybe considered as best practice only. For example, in > section 4.1.5: > >> > >> "LDPRs MUST use the predicate rdf:type to represent the concept of type." > >> > >> > >> Arnaud said on this issue : > >> "You probably remember that the Member Submission contained quite > a bit of requirements that fell in the category of best practices. > This one is still there and you could argue that it should be moved > to the Deployment Guide along with the rest that we sent that way." > > > > What else would you want it to be? > > Would you want it to be something that implies rdf:type relation? > > > > Henry > > > >> > >> > > > > Social Web Architect > > http://bblfish.net/ > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 15:10:10 UTC