LDP - GSP okay

Just a comforting follow-up on the concern on today's call about David 
Wood's LDP email.   An hour later he answers that he's okay with the 
status quo -- GSP proceeding on its own, separate from LDP.


     -- Sandro



-------- Original Message --------
Return-path: 	<public-ldp-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
Envelope-to: 	sandro@jay.w3.org
Delivery-date: 	Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:31:35 -0500
Received: 	from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by jay.w3.org with esmtps 
(TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from 
<public-ldp-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TiSk1-0000Ux-8w; Tue, 11 Dec 
2012 11:31:33 -0500
Received: 	from frink.w3.org ([128.30.52.56]) by maggie.w3.org with 
esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from 
<public-ldp-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TiSk0-0006ux-LK; Tue, 11 Dec 
2012 16:31:33 +0000
Received: 	from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) 
(envelope-from <public-ldp-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 
1TiSjr-0006BN-RB for public-ldp-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 
16:31:23 +0000
Resent-Date: 	Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:31:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: 	<E1TiSjr-0006BN-RB@frink.w3.org>
Received: 	from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp 
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <david@3roundstones.com>) id 1TiSjq-0006AY-QV 
for public-ldp-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:31:22 +0000
Received: 	from smtp178.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.178]) by 
lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) 
(envelope-from <david@3roundstones.com>) id 1TiSjn-0006ky-Kt for 
public-ldp-wg@w3.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:31:22 +0000
Received: 	from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by 
smtp37.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 
BCE563B06AD; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:30:52 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: 	OK
Received: 	by smtp37.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: 
david-AT-3roundstones.com) with ESMTPSA id 9589C3B039E; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 
11:30:52 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: 	multipart/signed; 
boundary="Apple-Mail=_378C6F27-1B75-44FD-86F7-8833CA3BCE29"; 
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Mime-Version: 	1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: 	David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
In-Reply-To: 
<OF8B3755FE.6A664EFA-ON88257AD1.005495D2-88257AD1.005540AD@us.ibm.com>
Date: 	Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:30:52 -0500
Cc: 	public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: 	<513A9F5E-D9AA-4AC1-B74B-3FFA1ACE1985@3roundstones.com>
References: 
<OF758DF57C.4A821A57-ON88257AD0.007588A9-88257AD0.00774E41@us.ibm.com> 
<AB0FF5A5-B777-4A2F-853D-D458A208B719@3roundstones.com> 
<OF8B3755FE.6A664EFA-ON88257AD1.005495D2-88257AD1.005540AD@us.ibm.com>
To: 	Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: 	Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: 	none client-ip=207.97.245.178; 
envelope-from=david@3roundstones.com; helo=smtp178.iad.emailsrvr.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: 	No, score=-3.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 	AWL=-2.899, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 	lisa.w3.org 1TiSjn-0006ky-Kt 
b058ae2571f48c3c3019758f7a1e5ff1
X-Original-To: 	public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Subject: 	Re: Closing ISSUE-5: Add a section explaining how LDBP is 
related to Graph Store Protocol
Archived-At: 
<http://www.w3.org/mid/513A9F5E-D9AA-4AC1-B74B-3FFA1ACE1985@3roundstones.com> 

Resent-From: 	public-ldp-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: 	<public-ldp-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/1006
X-Loop: 	public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: 	public-ldp-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: 	list
List-Id: 	<public-ldp-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: 	<http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: 	<mailto:public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: 
<mailto:public-ldp-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>



Hi Arnaud,

Nope, I'm just busy and not up to speed!  Sorry, the status quo 
satisfies me.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:31, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com 
<mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:

> Hi David,
> Did you see what we said about this on our WG page?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page#Linked_Data_Platform_.28LDP.29_vs_SPARQL_Graph_Store_HTTP_Protocol_.28GSP.29 
>
>
> I take it that the status quo doesn't satisfy you.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
>
>
> David Wood <david@3roundstones.com <mailto:david@3roundstones.com>> 
> wrote on 12/11/2012 07:07:13 AM:
>
> > From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com 
> <mailto:david@3roundstones.com>>
> > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS,
> > Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
> > Date: 12/11/2012 07:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: Closing ISSUE-5: Add a section explaining how LDBP is
> > related to Graph  Store Protocol
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The SPARQL 1.1 HTTP Graph Store Protocol [1] is in CR, but also its
> > status notes that it "may be superseded".  I'm not sure what that
> > means.  Its introduction says:
> > [[
> > This document describes the use of HTTP operations for the purpose
> > of managing a collection of RDF graphs. This interface is an
> > alternative to the SPARQL 1.1 Update protocol. Most of the
> > operations defined here can be performed using that interface, but
> > for some clients or servers, this interface may be easier to
> > implement or work with. This specification may serve as a non-
> > normative suggestion for HTTP operations on RDF graphs which are
> > managed outside of a SPARQL 1.1 graph store.
> > ]]
> > …which certainly sounds like an overlap with LDP to me and thus
> > ISSUE-5 makes sense.  We should feel an obligation to align W3C
> > Recommendations.
> >
> > I propose that the LDP WG formally ask Chimezie Ogbuji (the editor)
> > and the SPARQL WG to consider folding the requirements for the
> > SPARQL 1.1 HTTP Graph Store Protocol specification into the LDP
> > specification, and to withdraw the CR.  This would have the benefits
> > of aligning the specification family, reducing duplication and
> > satisfying a greater number of use cases.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> > --
> > http://about.me/david_wood
> >
>
> >
> > On Dec 10, 2012, at 16:43, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com 
> <mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> >
> > As I was looking closer to the list of open issues I realized that
> > this one [1] actually ought to be simply close as is.
> >
> > Unfortunately at the beginning I failed to make sure that our
> > minutes clearly reflected the resolutions we made and looking at our
> > archives I can't quite reconstruct the exact history here.
> >
> > The issue change log reads: "decided at the telcon 9/24/2012: keep
> > it on record (OPEN) for now, before we decide what to do." even
> > though the minutes from that day [2] don't clearly support that.
> >
> > At the same time, the week before we decided to address the
> > relationship between LDP and GPS by adding a paragraph to the LDP 
> WGpage [3].
> >
> > So, I don't see why we would still want to keep this issue open. As
> > a consequence I'm putting this one up for review.
> > If anyone has any lights to shed on this or wants to object please
> > let me know.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/5
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-09-24
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/
> > 2012-09-17#sparql_graph_store_protocol__2c__overview_by_steve_speicher
> > --
> > Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group