Re: ldp-ISSUE-77 (types of LDPR ): why MUST a LDPR declare it's type ... ? [Linked Data Platform core]

I am just saying that it might be useful to know the type of the LDPR - not disputing that - but it's not essential to work with the interaction capabilities that LDP is offering and therefore it is more of a best practice thing. 

Roger

> 
> On 30 May 2013, at 10:33, Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> ldp-ISSUE-77 (types of LDPR  ): why MUST a LDPR declare it's type ... ?  [Linked Data Platform core]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/77
>> 
>> Raised by: Roger Menday
>> On product: Linked Data Platform core
>> 
>> 
>> It is maybe the case that a number of the requirements in the spec should maybe considered as best practice only. For example, in section 4.1.5:
>> 
>> "LDPRs MUST use the predicate rdf:type to represent the concept of type."
>> 
>> 
>> Arnaud said on this issue :
>> "You probably remember that the Member Submission contained quite a bit of requirements that fell in the category of best practices. This one is still there and you could argue that it should be moved to the Deployment Guide along with the rest that we sent that way."
> 
> What else would you want it to be?
> Would you want it to be something that implies rdf:type relation?
> 
> Henry
> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
>