Re: Closing ISSUE-5: Add a section explaining how LDBP is related to Graph Store Protocol

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> 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> wrote on 12/11/2012 07:07:13 AM:
> 
> > From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> 
> > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, 
> > Cc: 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 status notes that it "may be superseded".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> 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