- From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:37:14 -0500
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF0FC0277F.CF7FEEE0-ON85257C24.004EB14C-85257C24.00505038@us.ibm.com>
Wow, I time-slice onto something(s actually) else for a couple days and we have real discussions going on! 1: Dumb question, for Eric P I think. If one is willing to assume an optimized serializer in order to move the proposed ldp:membershipRule "up front", what does the extra level of indirection and the anon bnode "trick" really give you beyond moving the 3-4 predicates that the anon bnode would otherwise contain up front? The mental chasm for me is accepting the notion of an optimized serializer more than whether it's moving a clump of form X vs form Y to a privileged spot. 2: To ErikW's comment, maybe it's fine for prototyping but I'm worried about lifecycle dev costs in product development, and once we create that Thing we own its care & feeding forever. I would "strongly discourage" my own devs from taking a course like that especially in the general case. 3: Presenting the option for server implementations seems perfectly appropriate in a companion document; one of the existing ones like BP&G, or another. As long as it meets the "clients can't depend on it" criteria others laid out, it's a fair investment decision to give server implementers. I have zero sympathy for it in the mainline spec, where as ErikW pointed out it would add nothing normative; I think it would be a distraction, if anything. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 14:37:51 UTC