Re: Getting to closure on the remaining issues

On 23 Jan 2014, at 23:17, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote:

> On 01/23/2014 03:58 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> * Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> [2014-01-23 15:07-0500]
>>> Hi Eric,
>>> 
>>> On 01/22/2014 09:09 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>> * Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> [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:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.01.27#2nd_Last_Call_timeline
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.01.27
>>>> 
>>>> Persuant to the agendum for ISSUE-92 - Interaction Model, tests for
>>>> creation of sub-container
>>>>   <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html#TC-C11>
>>>> and archival of container
>>>>   <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html#TC-C12>
>>>> 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
>>>>   <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/ldp.html#h2_ldpr>
>>>> 
>>>> and <LDP1ContainerInteraction> stands for whatever the WG chooses to
>>>> identify the HTTP interactions defined in 6
>>>>   <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/ldp.html#h2_ldpc>
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>> http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Container as it's supposed to be
>>> http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container :-) Same for ldp:Resource.
>>> 
>>> I know you wanted to avoid the confusion between the class and the
>>> object.
>> 
>> make that "interaction model"
> 
> :-)
> 
>> 
>>>         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.
>> 
>> Defenders of using "ldp:Container" to identify the interaction model
>> have stated that doesn't bind us to using only one interaction model
>> to manipulate properties of RDF nodes of type ldp:Container. I'm very
>> curious how they will support that in the text that comes back when
>> you dereference ldp:Container.
> 
> Somewhere in http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp.html, at the fragment-id
> #Container, I expect to find something saying that ldp:Container when
> used with rel=profile denotes the Container interaction model as
> defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#the-right-id.

You can not do things like that in RDF. You can not have a URI
denote one thing if it is related to by one relation, and another thing
if it is related to by another relation.

> 
> Somewhere in http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp.{rdf,ttl}, I expect to find a
> statement { #Container dcterms:description "@@same thing than in the
> HTML@@" }.
> 
> Note: "clients SHOULD NOT indiscriminately access profile URIs." :-)
> 
> Alexandre.
> 
>> I propose something like
>> 
>> "ldp:Container identifies a graph structure with the following schema.
>> It does not identify any particular interaction model for manipulating
>> nodes with that structure."
>> 
>> 
>>> Alexandre.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Friday, 24 January 2014 08:20:46 UTC