Review of Linked Data Notifications

Dear Sarven, Amy and the rest of you,

I read the Linked Data Notifications spec on the first leg of my flight back 
from TPAC and wrote an implementation of the discovery stuff in it on the 
second leg. My general impression is that the spec is well-written and 
easy to understand and easy to implement. If I weren't offline in the flight 
and lacked some docs, I think I would have implemented a full receiver 
too, except for the JSON-LD part, since we haven't got JSON-LD support in 
Perl. I had planned to write my review after the implementation, as issues 
tend to pop up after implementation, but unfortunately, finding that couple 
of hours is non-trivial now, so this is what I have to offer to the WG: :-)

As a general comment, I would have done the whole thing differently, I 
would have decoupled it from HTTP, and I wouldn't have had a preference 
for an RDF serialization. But that's just me, I hold in high regard those 
who write the code, and so if I wanted to make that point strong, I would 
show it through running code. I certainly do not want to delay the work 
you do with these ideas any further.

My only substantial comment is an editorial comment on how to express the 
discovery that senders and consumers do, 
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-ldn-20161011/#discovery
I think it would be clearer if it was reformulated to say something like 
"both must be tried before the sender or consumer may conclude that no 
inbox is present" 

KUTGW!

Cheers,

Kjetil

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 22:00:18 UTC