Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
LDP CR Transition Request
This is a transition request for the LDP Specification going to CR.
Contents
- 1 Document
- 2 Record of the decision to request the transition
- 3 Report of important changes to the document
- 4 Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements
- 5 Evidence that dependencies with other groups met (or not)
- 6 Evidence that the document has received wide review (e.g., as shown in an issues list)
- 7 Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
- 8 Objections
- 9 Implementation information
- 10 Patent disclosures
1 Document
Linked Data Platform 1.0
- final editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html
- last publication: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldp-20140311/
This document describes a set of best practices and simple approach for a read-write Linked Data architecture, based on HTTP access to web resources that describe their state using the RDF data model.
2 Record of the decision to request the transition
The decision to move the specification to Candidate Recommendation was made on 5 May 2014. See WG's resolution on going to CR.
3 Report of important changes to the document
In recognition of the current momentum JSON-LD is enjoying and reports by WG members that this new serialization format for RDF makes Linked Data much easier to adopt by developers, the WG decided to encourage support for this format by adding a SHOULD clause. See WG's resolution on encouraging support of JSON-LD.
This being merely a SHOULD however does not change compliance and/or invalidate someone's earlier review.
4 Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements
Requirements have not changed since the specification went into its first Last Call. The LDP WG has published its Use Cases & Requirements as a Note.
5 Evidence that dependencies with other groups met (or not)
The LDP specification has one normative reference to an IETF draft: Accept-POST. The reference is however limited to a feature marked "At risk", which can be dropped if the IETF draft were not to progress as expected.
6 Evidence that the document has received wide review (e.g., as shown in an issues list)
The LDP spec went to Last Call at the end of July 2013 for a period of 4 weeks. As a result we received 13 comments, several of which were deemed significant. Based on this important changes to the specifications were made.
The specification went to a second Last Call on 11 March 2014 for another 3 week review period. 16 more comments were received, 1 of which was deemed significant. It was extensively discussed both within the WG and on the public list by various parties. See public-ldp-wg archive.
7 Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
95 Issues were formally raised and closed. All related information can be found in the LDP Issue Tracker
Last call comments were handled using the Last Call Tracker. All comments have been properly disposed of:
8 Objections
No formal objection have been filed.
9 Implementation information
Because not all features defined in the LDP spec can be tested the WG decided to define the exit criteria as follows: "Each feature implemented and each test passed by at least two independent implementations". See Resolution from F2F.
In addition the WG is developing a test suite that is hosted on github. See LDP Test suite repository.
At the latest face to face meeting, a quick count among those present identified 4 independent implementations that can be expected to be ready within the next couple of months to exit CR. Several others are expected. A list of self declared LDP implementations is available on the WG's wiki: LDP Implementations.
In addition, a preliminary interoperability test was conducted between two implementations at the face to face meeting and the test was a success.
10 Patent disclosures
None.