Re: Let's get rolling

On 2016-07-08 05:46, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 05:27:36 +0000, Cody Burleson 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
>>
>
>
> FYI: https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/
>
> Dominik Tomaszuk
> Research Fellow
> University of Bialystok
> Poland
>
>
>

Thanks Dominik. We were going to ping this CG about Linked Data 
Notifications (LDN) since we are working on a specialisation of LDP for 
notifications (as the name implies). The spec itself is not dependent on 
LDP implementations but heavily influenced by LDP. LDN is intended to be 
compliant with LDP implementations out of the the box.

LDN is an Editor's Draft at the W3C Social Web Working Group. Folks are 
invited to get involved there at the WG or through the Github (issues):

https://github.com/csarven/ldn/

Items 2,4,6 from the LDP-Next Charter is of interest (and some are 
already identified as issues to address in LDN).

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Friday, 8 July 2016 14:44:12 UTC