- From: Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:34:44 +0100
- To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>, "Kingsley (Uyi) Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Platform WG" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D6B51A0F-E22F-4D6C-A869-42529DA8AD99@uk.fujitsu.com>
hello, I agree with Kingsley that <#NetWorth> != <NetWorth>. In the spec the networth is never called out as a Concept. It is only ever a Document, e.g. the one at http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/. It isn't the subject of any triple assertions itself. The actual networth is only defined by the individual Assets and Liabilities and by the Individual (linked with netWorthOf). I am not able to refer to JohnZSmiths networth as a concept. Roger On 24 Apr 2014, at 21:47, John Arwe wrote: > > I'm having a little bit of trouble getting your concrete message > > Roger, let me try this then > > 1: *If* the example was Gastronomy/likes_food/people, I would agree that (to me) those are "clearly" non-information resources. Since it's not, limited LDP-practical usefulness. > > 2: If you're trying to really toe that line in the Primer, you might consider renaming "the bug tracker" example(s) to "the bug Report tracker", independent of anything else. > > 3: NetWorth, unlike gastronomy, is not "clearly" a non-information resource to me. I'm not a fanatic about those things typically. I try to be fanatical about refusing to be fanatical ;-) > > > I still think that we are doing something 'wrong' in the DC examples > > Suggest a concrete change. Even if the end result is different or you're not sure yet what end result you do want (you put up a strawman, and the discussion changes your mind and/or others), a strawman often draws out differences that improve mutual understanding. Think about Sandro's statement last week (I forget the specifics, but it was on paging or patch I think, and it netted out to: it wasn't what I started with, but I'm Very Happy with the conclusion we reached). That's like The Poster Child for W3C wg process. > > E.g. if you're very very gently suggesting we rename "o:NetWorth" to "o:NetWorthReport" or something like that, "ok" is my reaction. Since I'm unable to understand clearly what you think we might be doing wrong now, that's my best strawman (and to be clear: I'm not proposing that change myself, even though I would be fine making it ... if it solves your angst, then propose it as a change; if not, find another that would solve your angst). > > > That help? > > > Best Regards, John > > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages > Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario >
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Sunday, 27 April 2014 17:35:35 UTC