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

Re: Proposal: change following to informative - 5.2.7 thread

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:52:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+OuRR_cY24TZ1R4YFj_ELPqtij1R4k1Tus0CROCXXQy6V1A1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Hi John,

I overlooked 4.3.5, which indeed answers my concern. Change this -1 to +1.

  Pa
Le 25 sept. 2013 15:16, "John Arwe" <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> a écrit :

>  > 5.2.7 - rdf (ONLY the portion after the comma; the first clause says
> normative)
> > -1 : an LDP client MUST not assume that an LDPC will have a unique type
>
> This is more puzzling.  I guess I need to recap in order to be sure we are
> understanding this the same way.
>
> LC 5.2.7 currently says, in total:
> 5.2.7 The representation of a LDPC MUST have rdf:type of ldp:Container,
> but it MAY have additional rdf:types.
>
> So the proposal (being pedantic) might look something like:
> 5.2.7 The representation of a LDPC MUST have rdf:type of ldp:Container.
> 5.2.7.1 (non-normative) The representation of a LDPC can have additional
> rdf:types beyond ldp:Container.
>
> The "lost" statement you object to losing (removing indexicals - waves to
> Henry) then is:
> The representation of a LDPC MAY have additional rdf:types beyond
> ldp:Container.
>
> This "lost" statement is noticeably different from the one in your
> response, namely "an LDP client MUST not assume that an LDPC will have a
> unique type"; your version is arguably just the flip side.  I'd probably
> agree they're equivalent myself, although I cannot speak for the others in
> the WG.  If we agree they are equivalent, then your version is directly
> asserted in 4.3.5 is it not?
>
> LC 4.3.5 In the absence of special knowledge of the application or domain,
> LDPR clients MUST assume that any LDPR can have multiple values for
> rdf:type.
>
> You might respond by objecting to the first clause (weasel words) in
> 4.3.5; I'd personally have sympathy for removing it in order to accomplish
> the original purpose.  Note that 4.3.5 applies to LDP*R*s, so it covers
> LDPCs as well.  If we get to a place where 4.3.5 covers the ground you are
> concerned about, is there any remaining objection to changing 5.2.7 as
> proposed originally and as restated above?
>
> Best Regards, John
>
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages<http://w3.ibm.com/jct03019wt/bluepages/simpleSearch.wss?searchBy=Internet+address&location=All+locations&searchFor=johnarwe>
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 16:53:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:44 UTC