Re: Let's get rolling

Yes! The Fedora Commons project has been slowly working through a more
rigorous reconsideration of its APIs after having adopted LDP as their
basis, and there are some questions we'd like the WG to pursue. We've been
particularly interested in combining LDP with some extant specs (Memento
and WebAC in particular, perhaps ResourceSync) and managing
NonRDFResources. There's clearly overlap with the charter issues and a lot
to talk about.

- Ben

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
wrote:

> Hi, team,
>
>
>
> In the LDP Next charter (
> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDPNext2015_Charter), the following
> eight technical issues were identified:
>
>
>
> 1.            How can retrieval of a container and its contained resources
> be combined so that fewer HTTP operations are required to work with them
> than it is necessary with LDP 1.0?
>
> 2.            How can a client filter what part of a resource or container
> the server is to return?
>
> 3.            How can a client be notified when a resource changes?
>
> 4.            How can a client find out whether a SPARQL endpoint is
> associated with a resource or set of resources?
>
> 5.            How can access to a resource be controlled?
>
> 6.            How can a client have greater control of how paging is done
> (size, sorting, etc.)?"
>
> 7.            How can a client learn what property constraints there are
> when creating or updating a resource?"
>
> 8.            How can changes to LDP resources be communicated
> efficiently, either some given set or rolling updates (feed) of changes?
>
>
>
> For my team, developing Carbon LDP, most of these have been relevant
> issues – some which we’ve solved in our own way as it has been required to
> do so in order to provide an adequate product to the industry. As such, we
> feel like we may have relevant (or debatable) information to bring to the
> table on each. But, we don’t want to work in a vacuum – taking a
> proprietary approach on each important issue that LDP 1.0 did not cover.
> We’d prefer, of course, to contribute to and promote a standards-based
> approach.
>
>
>
> But as it stands, there seems to have been little action since LDP 1.0. I
> say we shake it up and get this thing rolling again.
>
> Here’s my proposal:
>
> Let’s convene a web meeting to discuss the technical issues listed above,
> as well as others that anyone may throw onto the table, and then do a vote
> on the prioritization. I can organize this meeting and provide all of the
> facilities if necessary.
>
> Once we prioritize the issues, let’s then take them one-by-one and start
> chewing on them together.
>
> With LDP 1.0, we’ve started something important. As a participant in the
> working group, I can personally attest to the countless hours of thought
> and scrupulous deliberation that has gone into it. Yet, it’s still just a
> baby, barely crawling – much less walking.
>
>
>
> In his 2009 TED talk, Tim urged us onward toward a compelling vision for
> the next Web.
>
>
>
> "It's called Linked Data," he said. "I want you to make it. I want you to
> demand it."
>
>
>
> We still have a lot of work to do.
>
>
>
> How about I set up a conference and let’s actually start chewing on it
> again?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> -          Cody
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>