W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > April 2012

Re: "Linked Data Basic Profile 1.0 Submission"

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 20:18:00 +0200
Message-Id: <E11DDAFE-E47A-4415-B07E-6257BDC45FFF@w3.org>
Cc: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
To: Martynas Jusevicius <martynas@graphity.org>

apologies if the process is a bit opaque...

At this moment, the charter is under review by the W3C members (which also means that the charter is, for this period, frozen). This review period lasts until the first half of May. At that point, W3C will have to look at the review results. If all members who care about this group and who will have also cast their votes essentially agree with the charter (modulo minor changes) then the Working Group will be set up officially; mid or end of May is realistic. Of course, if there are major objections against the charter then... well, we will have to see how to answer those objections if we can.

This means, in practice, that the Working Group will start, if everything goes as we hope, very beginning of June. Any W3C member can send participants to the group. As for individuals not representing a W3C member (I am not sure which category you belong to): the chairs and W3C will have to make a decision on what policies to follow on the group participation of "Invited Experts", as we call this in the W3C jargon.

I hope this helps



Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)

On 9 Apr 2012, at 19:06, Martynas Jusevicius <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:

> Hey Steve,
> I realized afterwards this might not be the best place to comment on
> the member submission.
> Is the working group created and is it possible to join it? The
> submission says only "we suggest that the Consortium proceeds with the
> creation of such a Working Group". Team Comment on the other hand
> says: "Continuing discussion of this topic is welcome on the mailing
> list public-ldp@w3.org".
> I would be happy to provide comments, but am somewhat lost when it
> comes to W3C internal processes.
> Martynas
> graphity.org
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
Received on Monday, 9 April 2012 18:18:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:16:33 UTC