Re: Getting to closure on the remaining issues

Hi Eric,

On 01/22/2014 09:09 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Arnaud Le Hors <> [2014-01-22 15:36-0800]
>> Hi all,
>> As you all know we've been slipping off track with regard to our schedule
>> to deliver a Recommendation by the time our WG expires (1 June 2014). We
>> cannot afford any further slippage. See the timeline I laid out:
>> What this means, practically, is that we no longer have time to
>> investigate and debate issues at length. We HAVE to close every remaining
>> issue one way or another. If we can't agree on a resolution then we will
>> postpone the issue. Yes, that means we may have unresolved issues. Nothing
>> is perfect.
>> The good news is that while we still have several pending issues, I
>> believe we can close them all quickly (yes, really). We've got proposals
>> for all of them and it's "merely" a matter of getting these accepted.
>> Of course this is only to get us to LC2 and there is no way to tell what
>> will come out of it but that's beyond our control.
>> In the agenda for next Monday I put forward a set of proposals on how to
>> revolve every remaining issue:
> Persuant to the agendum for ISSUE-92 - Interaction Model, tests for
> creation of sub-container
>    <>
> and archival of container
>    <>
> use these header specifications respectively:
>    Link: val=<LDP1ContainerInteraction>; rel=profile
>    Link: val=<LDP1ResourceInteraction>; rel=profile
> Here, <LDP1ResourceInteraction> stands for whatever the WG chooses to
> identify the HTTP interactions defined in §5
>    <>
> and <LDP1ContainerInteraction> stands for whatever the WG chooses to
> identify the HTTP interactions defined in §6
>    <>
> These are concrete test cases which I hope will appeal to the folks
> waiting in the wings for something implementable.

To be clear, the proposal does not change the value for the
rel=profile relation, except maybe for the typos in the spec as it's supposed to be :-) Same for ldp:Resource.

I know you wanted to avoid the confusion between the class and the
object. That would actually align with the rationale of changing
rel=type to rel=interaction. That being said, I think it's fine to
keep ldp:Resource/ldp:Container as values because a class is just a
URI as others that can can be used as object. We would just make sure
that by dereferencinng them, we found find the information about using
them in the context of rel=profile and everything would be just fine.


>> Be prepared to cast a vote on every one of them or accept not to have a
>> say. I will not further delay resolution on these.
>> I know this has been trying for everyone and it's been hard for some to
>> stay on top of everything. The thing is I don't think the world would fall
>> apart no matter how any of these decisions would go. So, let's just decide
>> one way or another and move on.
>> Thanks.
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 20:07:14 UTC