- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 02:08:16 +0200
- To: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
- Cc: LDP Next <public-ldpnext@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKA5-AgnqiccYq5s-LEZR=3o8PDC0QhFfkxOAp_aLTjCw@mail.gmail.com>
On 8 July 2016 at 07:27, 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? > +1 > > > - Cody > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 00:08:45 UTC