Re: LDP agenda for 24 February

Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote on 02/21/2014 01:28:51 PM:

> -0  Personally, I think the container/membership story is extremely 
> problematic, and we've come around to a place where we can do much 
> better.

That's an opinion not a fact.

I'm sorry if I lack enthusiasm but having been in the center of all the 
discussions, trying to understand everyone's opinion and use cases so I 
could describe them to everyone to ensure a meaningful debate toward 
resolutions I have very little faith in the idea that anyone can come up 
with a  solution that will easily get everyone's support.

Rather, it seems that when people come up with "better/simpler solutions" 
they do so at the cost of failing to address some of the use cases we 
have. 

>  But I'm not going to lie in the road, because:
> 
>      1.  We really do need to move along
> 
>      2.  Arnaud may be right there's nothing better nearby

To clarify, I don't doubt that there are other ways to address the use 
cases we have. What I'm saying is that I don't know that there is a much 
better way that will get everyone excited. Every proposal we've seen has 
had its drawbacks, which were only better for one particular set of 
people.

> 
>      3.  Everyone can just use ldp:BasicContainer along with some 
> new "Membership" thing, leaving the existing Membership stuff to the
> large pile of not-quite-deprecated stuff, like RDF Reification and RDF 
Bag.

As I always say, anyone can make proposals. You're free to make a proposal 
to the WG and see if it flies (any plans for the weekend? ;-) But we're 
running out of time and we can't just rehash the same issues over and 
over, and every time someone new comes to the table. It's already clear 
that we've lost the attention of quite a few people who got tired of all 
this or just couldn't afford to put that much time into it.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group