Re: "Linked Data Basic Profile 1.0 Submission"

Hi Martynas,

This mailing list is used for discussion on the charter and not on the
member submission.  I think it would be great if you could join a working
group that looks to take the referenced member submission and provide this
feedback at that time.  With that I resist the temptation to start up a
response thread on the items you raise.  Look forward to discussion within
the working group.

Thanks,
Steve

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Martynas Jusevicius
<martynas@graphity.org>wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> congrats with this milestone :)
> I have a few comments though -- not sure where it's best to post them,
> so they just follow here below.
>
> Once again, I think there are too many new conventions, which can be
> solved by reusing existing ones (especially in 5.1 Informative
> section).
>
> bp:Container class is useful -- however, it seems to serve the same
> purpose a sioc:Container:
> "Container is a high-level concept used to group content Items
> together. The relationships between a Container and the Items that
> belong to it are described using sioc:container_of and
> sioc:has_container properties. A hierarchy of Containers can be
> defined in terms of parents and children using sioc:has_parent and
> sioc:parent_of."
> http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/#term_Container
> Can't this be reused or at least integrated somehow? So that the
> existing SIOC Linked Data "automagically" becomes (closer to being)
>  LDBP 1.0 compliant?
> If DublinCore is endorsed in this document, isn't it OK to endorse a
> stable and widespread vocabulary such as SIOC? It is already a W3C
> member submission [1]. I'm not sure creating another vocabulary for
> such a similar purpose is a good idea.
>
> And then I think the whole approach to paging (isn't it called
> "pagination" in English?) is quite wrong.
> If you think in terms of Containers and Resources, then in my opinion
> they can be split into several cases:
>
> 1. Item resource, which description only includes subject URIs
> identical to the request URI
> Usually a result of DESCRIBE query. Linked Data API defines this
> concept as api:ItemEndpoint.
>
> 2. Container/List resource, which description includes resources other
> than request URI.
> This is what bp:Container, sioc:Container, and api:ListEndpoint is about.
> Description is usually a result of a (SPARQL) query, so this is where
> paging applies.
>
> 3. Mixed, combining #1 and #2 - e.g. DBPedia returning a description
> of a class plus short list of its instances
>
> As #2 (at least in my experience) is derived as a result of a
> CONSTRUCT query, so I think some SPARQL terms like LIMIT and OFFSET
> can be reused here. For example, instead of
>
> <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer?firstPage>
>   a bp:Page;
>   bp:pageOf <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer>;
>   bp:nextPage <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer?p=2>.
>
> we could say:
>
> <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer?offset=0&limit=20>
>   a bp:Page;
>   bp:pageOf <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer>;
>   bp:nextPage <
> http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer?offset=20&limit=20>.
>
> I've used this approach successfully for a long time.
> The purpose of the Page concept is not totally clear to me -- isn't it
> just another Container (subset of the assetContainer)?
>
> Or better yet, since in RDF everything can be addressed unambiguously,
> why can't we identify query string parameters with URIs and map them
> directly to SPARQL query parameters?
> And here's where I want to bring up the SPIN vocabulary again, which
> allows modelling of SPARQL queries in RDF and is also a W3C member
> submission [3].
> SPIN readily includes properties such as sp:offset and sp:limit, so we
> could say:
>
> <
> http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer?http%3A%2F%2Fspinrdf.org%2Fsp%23offset=0&http%3A%2F%2Fspinrdf.org%2Fsp%23limit=20
> >
>   a bp:Page;
>   bp:pageOf <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer>;
>   bp:nextPage <
> http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer?http%3A%2F%2Fspinrdf.org%2Fsp%23offset=20&http%3A%2F%2Fspinrdf.org%2Fsp%23limit=20
> >.
>
> In my eyes, that would be much less ambiguous and complete the whole
> cycle from HTTP query strings to SPARQL query strings by reusing
> existing vocabularies.
>
> Martynas
> graphity.org
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2007/SUBM-sioc-spec-20070612/
> [2] http://code.google.com/p/linked-data-api/wiki/API_Vocabulary
> [3] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/SUBM-spin-overview-20110222/
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> > The submission discussed at the workshop has now been acknowledged:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/Submission/
> > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/02/
> >
> > Much thanks to W3C members IBM, DERI, EMC, Oracle, Red Hat,
> > SemanticWeb.com, and Tasktop, for their work on this.
> >
> > I'll link it into the proposed charter shortly.
> >
> >     -- Sandro
> >
> >
> >
>
>