Re: Definition of Collection and LDP Paging

> On 24 Apr 2015, at 19:58, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:53 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net
> <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Apr 2015, at 18:34, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Please keep in mind that AS2 is not RDF.
>> 
>> Come on, the examples contain Turtle, RDFa and Json-LD and it has
>> an ontology at the bottom.
>> [snip]
> 
> And only the JSON-LD is normative. The Turtle and RDFa examples are
> illustrative.

JSON-LD is an RDF format is it not? Then the minimal test of correctness
is that  the other examples describe isomorphic graphs as defined by the
RDF Semantics specification. 

> If you have a concrete proposal to improve the non-normative RDF
> alignment, then by all means submit a PR. If the proposal is to remove
> the existing paging properties ("next", "prev", "first", "last" etc)
> in favor of a normative dependency on LDP Paging, I'm afraid I'm
> definitely -1 on that.

My argument here is about the modelling. I am ok for having the next,
prev, first and last links also appear in the document in addition to the
http headers as described in the LDP paging spec, but I think there
should be alignement there semantically ( especially since both are defined
in terms of the same IETF spec ). I think that doing this can simplify the model
too.

I am not one for making PRs before even discussing the possibilities.
It requires first getting the model right, then the job of adjusting
the spec can be made, given that it could have a lot of consequences.
But it is the job of the group to make sure the specs produced here
are consistent with other work in the W3C .

Henry

> 
> - James

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Friday, 24 April 2015 18:21:03 UTC