Re: SoLiD, and LDP dependency

AtomPub had CRUD about 8 years ago, and lots of implementations with
interop. Activity Streams 1.0 built on it and deployed it widely,
Despite that, it is still less useful than HTML.

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 24 July 2015 at 20:26, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is precisely and intentionally R and CUD for Annotations, as the first
>> step on the critical path towards all of the components needed to support
>> the interactions from Doug's ecosystem diagram :)
>
>
> Yes exactly.
>
> We have a community group looking at read and write technology
> https://www.w3.org/community/rww/ with 91 mainly hobbyists and enthusiasts
>
> I would not say the group has any great authority in this matter, but over
> the years we've looked at and evaluated many technologies that enable CRUD
> operations over the web.
>
> My personal view (as a member, not as chair) is that LDP has come the
> closest we've seen to providing a sweet spot of allowing simple CRUD
> operations using PUT/POST, allowing open ended data (as opposed to some pre
> determined list of terms) yet being simple enough to create lots of
> implementations and libraries (I think there are 10/11 passing in the test
> suite data)
>
> I would not claim LDP is perfect, and certainly some nits could be raised,
> but IMHO relatively minor / pedantic ones (eg technology X violates REST,
> specs contain out band information,  technology Y will never take off etc.
> ), rather than, concrete improvements or alternatives which I'd love to hear
> about.
>
> I'd love to see another technology take this on this in a way that can solve
> user stories using, for example, the social syntax that is one of the
> deliverables of this group.  But in truth, I've seen nothing anywhere close.
>
> If anyone has any proposed system for CRUD operations on the web, we'd love
> to look at it.  But bear in mind it did take a few years to get to consensus
> on LDP and get it voted a REC by W3C membership.  So I think it's a great
> base on which to build.
>
>>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Marks <kevinmarks@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed - the Annotations spec seems like an exercise in writing a CRUD
>>> API for an LDP store rather than implementing the architecture
>>> described well in
>>> http://www.w3.org/annotation/diagrams/annotation-architecture.svg
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rob Sanderson
>> Information Standards Advocate
>> Digital Library Systems and Services
>> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>

Received on Sunday, 26 July 2015 21:24:45 UTC