W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2013

Re: optimizing container pages serialization to enable streaming

From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:44:43 -0500
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFD4F7052C.8CDD1FB8-ON85257C24.0050997A-85257C24.0050FFA1@us.ibm.com>
Nothing like hitting Send and resuming a suspended thread to elicit the 
missing comment.  New version here.  No changes to 1-3

> 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. 

4: Eric P, your ldp:membershipRule proposal I think relies on the
"exactly one" phrase.  When Henry raised the prospect of this blank
node pattern in earlier discussions, he allowed for >1 - would that not
break your streaming proposal's required advantage?  I see, reading 
another branch, that the bottom of Henry's 
renders this explicit (again).

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 14:45:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:46 UTC