Re: ld-patch review

Thank you for the review. You can find the changes implemented in [1]
and my comments in-line:

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/rev/503808034312

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> Okay, sorry to be a pain, but I see a few problems with the current text.
> I wouldn't think any would be controversial or hard to fix.
>
> I was looking at:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/66030a2d0f9f/ldpatch.html
>
>
> Major concerns (must be addressed before publication):
>
> - I don't think we can claim "text/ldpatch" without talking to the IETF
> first.   Unless someone is sure about this, best to take it out for now.
> Maybe put in an empty appendix saying "Media type registration will go here"
> to remind us all this has to be done.

I have removed the mentions of the media type in the introduction, and
added the phrase [[ The "text/ldpatch" media type is _prospectively_
used to identify such LD Patch documents. ]] in the example making use
of it. I have also created the section and left it empty.

>  I suspect it will end up in
> application, too.      Also, can we us ldpatch or ld-patch everywhere, and
> not switch between them?    That is, the TR name should match the media type
> in this regard.

Why not. I am now going with "ldpatch" (no dash) for the short
version, and "LD Patch" when referring to the name of the technology.

>
> - The "considered alternatives" section misreads the resolution to publish
> [1].  The understanding on which I supported publication was that we present
> ourselves as having an open mind, not that we've already decided.    Why
> would we ask for feedback if we've already decided?    Here's some text
> which fits what I had in mind.   This kind of text should be styled as a
> NOTE or be in a box in the SOTD, not free-standing as spec text in the
> draft.
>
> <h2 id="alternative-designs">Alternative Designs</h2>
>
>       <p>
>    Although the Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group is currently
> favoring LD-Patch, it seeks more input in deciding which format to promote
> for use in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#h4_ldpr-HTTP_PATCH">LDP
> PATCH</a> operations on of RDF Sources.  Other viable candidates
> include:</p>
>
>       <ul>
>  <li><a
> href="http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/#http-patch">SPARQL 1.1
> Update</a> &mdash; already standardized, but quite complex for LDP
> scenarios</li>
>  <li><a
> href="http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDP_PATCH_Proposals#EricP.27s_proposal">SPARQL
> Patch</a> &mdash; restricted to a simple subset of SPARQL 1.1 Update </li>
>  <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/TurtlePatch">TurtlePatch</a>
> &mdash; uses an even simpler subset, but requires unusual handling of blank
> nodes</li>
>  <li><a href="http://afs.github.io/rdf-patch/">RDF Patch</a> &mdash;
> simple, but also requires unusual handling of blank nodes </li>
>        </ul>
>
>       <p>
>  At this point, the advantage leans towards LD-Patch in terms of
> simplicity, ease of implementation, and run-time performance on anticipated
> data.  We welcome data relevant to this decision.
>       </p>
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-08-18#resolution_4 : Publish
> LD-PATCH as FPWD with inverse path and slice syntax fixed, possibly other
> raised issues (eg slash syntax), links to sandro's and eric's proposal
> (explaining we're asking feedback about which direction to go) ←

I don't see how much your wording changes much, but I am fine with it,
so I used it unchanged. That's shorter than my version, which is good
:-)

I guess it's a good candidate for the sotd, so I went with that. I
don't think we need a special styling when used in that position.

>
> Minor concerns (should be addressed before publication):
>
> - There should be a proper references section, with at least a couple
> references, eg for HTTP PATCH and LDP.

Done with a few others.

>
> - Please remove the non-normative flag on section 2, since it could easily
> be understood as applying to all of section 2.

Even if detailed, Section 2 was meant to be informative as it doesn't
specify the syntax nor the semantics formally. Next sections are for
that effect.

>
> - Can we say "partial" instead of "minimal" support for blank nodes?

Sure. Done.

>
> - schema:attendee is still broken (backwards).   As per
> http://schema.org/attendee , an Event has an attendee which is a person,
> while you have it the other way around.  The easiest fix would be to make up
> attendeeOf in another namespace.

Good catch. I went with <https://schema.org/performerIn> instead.

>
> - I find the example use of [ = ] being a URL to be really weird.  While
> it's not actually bad RDF modeling, it looks as if it were, which I think
> will mislead readers.  I suggest getting rid of the URLs for the events and
> just use their names.

I am not sure to understand your concern, and why you relate it to
"RDF modeling". I am inclined to leave it as it is.

>
> - Personally, I don't like the stuff in the intro about how this is all
> about LDP, not really about RDF, but I guess you put that there for Andy?  I
> don't really care.

The main abstract is still about "RDF Graph". LDP and "Linked Data
Platform" are only mentioned along with Working Group (I fixed the one
place it wasn't the case). I think Andy's remark on LD Patch being
resource-centric -- when compared to the database-centric approach of
SPARQL (my words) -- was important, hence the use of Linked Data in
some places, without the 'P'.

>
> That's it!

Thank you for the thorough review. Can you please confirm you are fine
with the changes I made?

Alexandre

>
>    -- Sandro
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 13:59:58 UTC