Re: Primer

Hi Roger,

I addressed the comments from John and Henry and manually merged the
changes from the bblfish branch. Can you take care of Henry's issues 1 ~ 3
in the introduction section ?
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/25851aac7002/ldp-primer/ldp-primer.html

Ashok/John/Henry,
We trace how we addressed your comments in the following document. We will
send a small summary to you as soon as we are done.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ekxW2DOoN-7mDMSP1e5Hk-OOAgbilO21vHIt5bTiGeU/

Best Regards,
Nandana



On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:29 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net <
henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 6 Jun 2014, at 14:38, Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Henry,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I like the edits you made to the text in the introduction. You left
> three issues in the introduction section, and I've got a few comments.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Issue 1:
> >>>>> it is true that o:hasDoc is not defined. It should be, I agree. Or
> do you know of a well known bit of vocab we can re-use ? As for your
> question about what it adds in addition to ldp:contains, it allows domain
> vocabulary to be used to describe the relation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't know really. You were the one arguing that this case is an
> important one.
> >>>
> >>> Well, it allows people to be more domain-specific about describing the
> relationship between two resources ... That's an important and it is what a
> DirectContainer allows one to do.
> >>
> >> It should be easy to find an easy to understand real use case for this
> then.
> >
> >
> > ahh ... I've got it. You are saying that "hasDoc" and "contains" are
> both generic words.
> > But, this example is a online Document store - and one could argue that
> "hasDoc" is actually domain vocab ...
>
> Iit is a best practice to publish a vocabulary at the URL of the
> vocabulary. So the vocabularies you use
> should do that. Furthermore it is a best practice to do something that is
> meaningful, but for the moment we don't understand
> what this example is, since we don't understand what this o:hasDoc
> relation is. It is a best practice to re-use existing
> vocabulary, but this is not an existing vocabulary. And furthermore the
> point was made during the ldp spec writing that there
> were big need for all these features, so I am just waiting to see one that
> makes sense that is not just made up.
>
> It should be possible to find a real case of a relation between a
> container and document that would do.
>
> Perhaps sioc:container_of
>
>    http://sioc-project.org/ontology#term_container_of
>
>
>
> >
> > Roger
> >
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>