Re: Let's get rolling

The versioning support in LDP is something Apache Marmotta is interested,
contributing our experience implementing the Memento protocol for Linked
Data: http://marmotta.apache.org/kiwi/versioning.html

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Benjamin Armintor <armintor@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co