Re: SoLiD, and LDP dependency

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
wrote:

> Amy G wrote:
> > Options could be either abstracting LDP-specific parts out of the SoLiD
> > spec and considering it on that basis, or reframing it instead as a
> > layer between the Social/Federation specs (whatever they end up looking
> > like) and LDP for implementers who /do /want to use LDP as the basis for
> > their server (the latter being beyond the scope of this WG).
>
> On the other hand it is good practice while developing standards to
> avoid reinventing wheels.
>

+1 to avoiding wheel reinvention / reuse of existing work


The charter of the Web Annotation WG also does not mention LDP:
> http://www.w3.org/annotation/charter/
>
> But that WG now is creating a specification which "primarily builds upon
> the Linked Data Platform [ldp] recommendation":
> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/
>

Yes. And some participants and external commenters have some of the same
concerns with LDP, HTTP, and JSON-LD in the Annotation context as well.

For example:
 * https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/51  (Should we avoid
constraining HTTP at all?)
 * https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/34  (Is Turtle support
really required? Really?)
 * https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/52  (Should we avoid
constraining JSON-LD at all?)

Having a joint understanding of the benefits and disadvantages would be
great to help both WGs come to consensus individually and, preferably,
together :)

Thanks!

Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305