- From: <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 18:09:39 +0200
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Cc: "Kingsley (Uyi) Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>, Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 1 Apr 2014, at 15:10, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org> wrote: > Great point, Kingsley. One possible explanation (just a wild guess): > so that the companies involved with LDP can soon claim "W3C standard > compliance" while knowing that no one else will bother to implement > such a specification? I can easily proove this wrong. I am implementing LDP mostly on my own with very little money and under an Apache 2.0 licence and have had no trouble with any of the issues mentioned in this thread. You can check out the code here: https://github.com/stample/rww-play It uses Java frameworks and relative URIs as well as relative graphs. It uses banana-rdf which allows us to abstract away either Jena or Sesame. I am not yet at the point where I can switch from one framework to the other on the command line ( because that was not my priority ) but I could do that in a few days. So the "practical issue" discussed here is really very theoretical IMHO. > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> On 4/1/14 8:19 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> >>> Also, I think the risks are quite bounded, because this design is attached >>> to the current three LDP containers. That is, this decision only applies >>> if you're dealing with one of three particular classes of resource >>> (ldp:BasicContainer, ldp:DirectContainer, and ldp:IndirectContainer). >>> Personally, frankly, I expect 5 years from now all three of those containers >>> will be considered obsolete. We're really just starting to figure out LDP, >>> and my sense is several details of how those containers are defined will be >>> problematic, once we have some more experience. But for now, they're good >>> enough to move forward a bit, and as we learn more we can define new and >>> better ones. >> >> >> I struggle to understand why one would design with inevitable obsolescence >> in mind. Seriously now, if this was the basis of AWWW where would the Web be >> today? >> >> One thing I do agree with though is simply this: any spec that boils down to >> poorly derived compromises of AWWW is doomed for obsolescence, and that will >> occur in less than 5 years. >> >> If a spec isn't implemented by anyone, or a tiny minority, in the context of >> the Web it is basically as good as obsolete, IMHO. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley Idehen >> Founder & CEO >> OpenLink Software >> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen >> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about >> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >> >> >> >> >> > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2014 16:10:17 UTC