Re: ldp-ISSUE-77 (types of LDPR ): why MUST a LDPR declare it's type ... ? [Linked Data Platform core]

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I'm fine with moving to Deployment Guide.

The motivation for this was to help with scenarios around query, the data
is much more useful when it had rdf:type explicitly set.  Which sounds more
like a resource definition/deployment guidance.

- Steve Speicher


>
> 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*<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/* <http://bblfish.net/>
> > >
> > >
> >
>