Re: Let's get rolling

At the risk of expanding the scope, I wonder whether other people have run
up against the need for standard benchmarks.

Is this something we'd be interested in taking up?

- Tom

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Count me in. There may be some additional LDP capabilities for
> consideration that have come from its use in OSLC.
>
>
>
> Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
> OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
> 919-525-6575
>
>
>
>
> From:        Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
> To:        LDP Next <public-ldpnext@w3.org>
> Date:        07/08/2016 01:28 AM
> Subject:        Let's get rolling
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>