Re: major revision of LDP draft charter

On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 10:29 -0700, ashok malhotra wrote:
> That's a good comment, Dan!
> I had the opposite reaction re. the timing.  Why do we have to wait till
> June to get start?  Why can't we start next month? :-)

As Ivan pointed out, it takes about 6 weeks after submitting it to the
AC for review, so...   we're trying.

> Re. the technical issues, the charter makes it clear that these are some
> possible issues and others may come up when the WG starts and some
> may get dropped.  Nevertheless, I had a couple of comments on the issues:
> 
> 1. RDF types supported -- don't we need to support all the RDF types?

I don't think so.   For one thing, the list of RDF datatypes is
unbounded -- it's extensible.   So that means we can't mandate they all
be supported, and does that mean we mandate none of them?  The idea here
is to pick a reasonable set as a minimum that people can count on being
supported.   I note that OWL and RIF already did this; we might want to
start with that same list they used, or whatever ends up in in the
expected submission.

> 2. Re. syntax, I think this is orthogonal to our concerns.

It seems to me, one of the use cases is to be able to write a client
that you know will work with any server that conforms to this
specification.    If we don't specify the RDF serialization to use,
people can't write clients like that.   The server might only do RDF/XML
or only do RDFa or only do ntriples or only do Turtle or only do
JSON-LD, or maybe only do some proprietary RDF serialization.  So, I
think we need to pick one as the required minimum if we want
out-of-the-box interoperability.

> 6. Concurrency depends on the type of storage and other concerns

I'm thinking of the kind of situation addressed by this bit:

        Because the update process involves getting a resource first,
        and then modifying it and later putting it back on the server,
        there is the possibility of a conflict (for example, another
        client might have updated the resource since the GET action). To
        mitigate this problem, Basic Profile implementations should use
        the HTTP If-Match header and HTTP ETags to detect collisions.
        
         -- http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/basic-profile-linked-data/index.html
        
It seems to me that's an important point that shouldn't be forgotten.
Perhaps I could explain that concern better.

> So, I would remove the issue and add it to the para above that
> discusses authorization and authentication.
> All the best, Ashok

Thanks for reviewing this so carefully (and on a Sunday!).  I hope I've
adequately explained why we included these items....

   -- Sandro
 
> On 3/18/2012 10:18 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> > On 18 Mar 2012, at 13:10, Eric Prud'hommeaux<eric@w3.org>  wrote:
> >
> >> * Dan Brickley<danbri@danbri.org>  [2012-03-18 12:46-0400]
> >>> Quick iphone reply for now. Basically "what's the hurry?". The whole thing seems to be based on a magazine article that is rumoured to be a potential Submission to W3C. How did we jump from that to a proposed group already?
> >>>
> >>> Apologies if I've missed more context,
> >> The bulk of the context is the LEDP workshop
> >>   <http://www.w3.org/2011/09/LinkedData/>
> >> at which the ~45 participants said they wanted a WG and some wanted to
> >> help with the Submission which IBM was working on. We promised to
> >> create a mailing list<mailto:public-ldp@w3.org>  where we would float
> >> a proposed charter.
> >>
> >> The next natural step is to float that charter by the AC once we have
> >> a guage for how well it meets the community's needs.
> > Thanks! In that case role of the workshop, and details on consensus amongst its attendees, should be higher visibility in abstract/intro. Otherwise the motivation feels a bit weak.
> >
> > 'This Group addresses a need identified by ... who agreed ... and asked W3C to ..."? Etc
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 18 Mar 2012, at 12:13, Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> After various discussions, we've rewritten the Linked Data Platform
> >>>> (LDP) draft charter.  New version is here:
> >>>>
> >>>>        http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter
> >>>>
> >>>> The diff is linked from there, but only the last few paragraphs
> >>>> (standard charter stuff) are the similar enough for the diff to be
> >>>> useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> At this point, we're expecting to formally propose this to the W3C
> >>>> membership within a week or two, so please review it soon.
> >>>>
> >>>>   -- Sandro
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> -- 
> >> -ericP
>

Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 19:06:44 UTC