Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92

Just to clarify: The status quo allows one to have on an LDPC either one 
of the following two headers:

Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Container>; rel="type"
Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource>; rel="type" 

Are you saying you're happy with that?

I thought you said you would consider it to be a bug if the latter was 
found on an LDPC. Yet, considering this a bug would make it impossible to 
legitimately address Alexandre's use case: having an LDPC without it's 
associated interaction.

I can actually see why you would think it's wrong to have the type 
specified at the HTTP level not match the one specified in RDF but this is 
what motivated the proposal to change to rel="profile" which you're 
opposing.

I don't understand whether you actually accept Alexandre's use case and 
how you propose to address it.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 01/17/2014 04:29:25 PM:

> From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, 
> Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Tim
> Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
> Date: 01/17/2014 04:30 PM
> Subject: Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92
> 
> 
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 23:45, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Henry, this is not crazy. This is simply a practical way of making
> progress. We have two sets of people reading the text to mean 
> different things.
> 
> There was no serious reading of the RFC6906 text at any point yet in
> this discussion.
> I quoted two extracts of the RFC at length here:
> 
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jan/0060.html
> 
> and could not find anything there that explained how this relation 
> could in any way solve
> the problems put forward here and for which the rel=profile link was
> meant to be an answer.
> I have not had anyone contradict my reading yet.
> 
> > Not withstanding the fact that one of these two sets counts 
> everyone in the WG but you and the other is a singleton called Henry,
> 
> That was last week when I asked for more time to review the 
> proposal. Since then I have
> looked a lot more carefully at the issues, I have read in detail the
> RFC 6906, and have
> discussed with a number of people openly on this list. I think we 
> have made good progress, 
> and I don't think that I am alone in my doubts any more. 
> 
> > why isn't it reasonable to turn to the author to arbitrate and 
> tell us whether the proposed use is in the spirit of the spec or not? 
> 
> The author can point to spec text, and explain how he believes this 
> applies to what
> we are doing. But he is not an impartial player in this debate as he
> wrote the text.
> 
> The text of RFC 6906 combined with a description of our alleged problem 
has 
> to be the basis on which we come to a decision on this.
> 
> I don't see furthermore how one can accuse me of holding up a 
> process, since I am
> the one arguing here that the current spec is fine, and am defending
> the status quo.
> 
> Henry
> 
> 
> > --
> > Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From:        Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> 
> > To:        Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, 
> > Cc:        "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Working Group" <public-ldp-
> wg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> 
> > Date:        01/17/2014 02:18 PM 
> > Subject:        Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 17 Jan 2014, at 22:44, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > John already reported that he checked with Erik Wilde on the 
> proposed use of rel=profile for the purpose at hand and that Erik 
> said it was fine. Why can't we accept the opinion of the very author
> of the relevant RFC rather than try to second guess what the text 
> was meant to allow or not? 
> > 
> > You're joking right?
> > 
> > The text of an RFC is primary over the opinion of its author. It 
> is the text that will be
> > used and referred to by developers in the future. We are 
> discussing what type of relation
> > we want in the LDP spec, and for this we need to look at the text 
> published here:
> > 
> >    http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc6906
> > 
> > If the author could not get his thoughts through in this text, 
> then there is no second 
> > guessing.
> > 
> > > Sorry but we just don't have time for this type of debate 
> anymore. THAT is not constructive.
> > 
> > This is crazy! Allowing this type of reasoning would be to akin to 
> > writing blank checks in standards body.
> > 
> > Henry
> > 
> > 
> > > --
> > > Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 01/17/2014 01:21:00 
PM:
> > > 
> > > > From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> 
> > > > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, 
> > > > Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org> 
> > > > Date: 01/17/2014 01:21 PM 
> > > > Subject: Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 17 Jan 2014, at 20:24, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> 
wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <ericw3c@gmail.com> wrote on 01/17/2014
> 10:45:25 AM:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Apart from how we would best model types vs. interaction 
models, we
> > > > > > are good netizens who use HTTP headers as the are intended, 
and
> > > > > > rel=profile is intended to communicate the interaction model.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The fundamental question is (again) whether we agree that the 
> > > > interaction model isn't tied to the RDF data type and whether 
> > > > Alexandre's use case - allowing one to have a container that 
doesn't
> > > > behave like an LDPC but a mere LDPR - is legit and should be 
supported. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > If we don't agree with that - and Henry apparently doesn't - 
> > > > discussing how it should be supported is rather moot. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Given the amount of discussion that has already taken place over 

> > > > this question - this is just a new occurence, it's not really 
> > > > different from the discussion around mediatypes we had earlier on 
- 
> > > > I see little hope to get consensus on this unfortunately. It's 
like 
> > > > discussing politics or religion - people don't typically 
> change their mind.
> > > > 
> > > > Frankly dismissing arguments as religious is not very 
constructive. 
> > > > Precise arguments
> > > > were made that are eminently falsifiable. 
> > > > 
> > > > I have made a few:
> > > > 
> > > >   a) that rel="profile" as specified in rfc6906 makes no mention 
of 
> > > > interaction models.
> > > >    => This can be falsified by pointing to relevant sections of 
the wiki
> > > > 
> > > >   b) that the archiving problem could be applied just as well to 
any
> > > > relation to interaction 
> > > >      models,  so that the argument about moving to a relation 
won't 
> > > > solve the problem
> > > >     => This can be falsified by explaining how this is mistaken
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Given how late we are already with regard to our schedule we 
can't
> > > > afford to spend more airtime discussing this. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This leaves us with two options: 1) give up on supporting 
> > > > Alexandre's use case, 2) overrule Henry's objection and proceed, 
> > > > leaving it to him to decide whether he wants to file a formal 
> objection. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please, be prepared to vote on those options. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards. 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software 
Group
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Social Web Architect
> > > > http://bblfish.net/
> > > > 
> > 
> > Social Web Architect
> > http://bblfish.net/
> > 
> > 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>