ISSUE-42: Use of common-properties should not be overly prescriptive in section 4.8

common properties

Use of common-properties should not be overly prescriptive in section 4.8

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Linked Data Platform Spec

Raised by:

Steve Battle

Opened on:

2013-01-03

Description:

Section 4.8 Common-Properties <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-ldp-20121025/#common-properties> states that:
"This section summarizes some well-known RDF vocabularies that must be used in Linked Data Platform Resources wherever a resource needs to use a predicate whose meaning matches one of these."

This seems overly prescriptive.

This point was initially raised by Leigh Dodds on the public-ldp mailing list <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2012Dec/0001.html>:

"It is clearly useful if people re-use existing properties where they
are applicable. It might also be useful to have some general guidance
on which properties are considered to be currently "best practice" or
are most widely deployed, etc. However I don't think the LDP
specification is the place to do this. For two reasons:

* This kind of guidance is best published by specific communities who
are seeking convergence around their data. Not on a blanket basis by a
W3C group. There needs to be space for these kinds of recommendations
to evolve and be widely discussed
* LDP is meant to be defining a platform for managing data. It should,
as far as possible, be agnostic to what data is being stored inside
it."

"it diverges from current practice. For example:

* rdfs:label is widely used as a default labelling property, its not
just used in vocabularies. Discouraging its use suggests that usage is
wrong; at the very least an alternative ought to be recommended
* There are occasions when using the old Dublin Core terms may be more
appropriate than the newer dcterms, see [4]
* The LDP specification recommends use of rdfs:range that are at odds
with their specification and common practice, e.g. dcterms:title and
dcterms:description both have a range of rdfs:Literal."

"Section 4.8 as it stands be removed and
perhaps replaced with some informative text recommending re-use of
vocabulary where it makes sense to do so."

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-36 on John Arwe to [EDITOR] Make changes for ISSUE-42 (moving common props to deployment guide) - due 2013-01-14, closed

Related emails:

1. LDP Rec (from eric@w3.org on 2015-02-20)
2. Re: ldp-ISSUE-59 (recursive-delete): Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior [Linked Data Platform core] (from ashok.malhotra@oracle.com on 2013-04-05)
3. ldp-ISSUE-42 (common properties): Use of common-properties should not be overly prescriptive in section 4.8 [Linked Data Platform core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-01-03)

Related notes:

Display change log