OSLC query, vote on query results container MUST be an LDPC

[David Honey1 <DavidHoney@uk.ibm.com>]

Following up an action from last week's
meeting, I found the meeting minutes where we discussed whether the requirement
for a query results container to be an LDPC was voted to be a MUST rather
than a SHOULD: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/Meetings/Telecon2018.07.19

Here an excerpt from the minutes|:
14:22] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH):
Jim: why care about LDPC adoption in case of the Query (only)?
[14:23] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): RQM is one of the tools using a custom
predicate
[14:24] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): ^(NIck)
[14:26] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): one option is that we make LDPC method
a must, the oslc predicate can be a MAY; Martin thinks it would be good
to have a "clean" implementation example. Jim: in reality most
clients & servers would have to implement all options.
[14:27] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Jim: we can adopt LDP as the memb pred
specification mechanism, then express the default rdfs:member and oslc
predicate as membership predicate and an equiv predicate membership declaration
method respectively
[14:29] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): David: if nothing is provided, rdfs:member
MUST be used. If a shape is given, a given predicate MUST be used. If we
make LDPC a must, all v2.0 implementation will not be compliant with v3.0.
[14:30] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Nick: that would not be the end of the
world. we want compat for clients, not necessarily for the servers!
[14:31] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): David: the 2.0 spec was vague on some
statements and just by clarifying them in 3.0, many servers may be incompatible
with the 2.0 clients
[14:34] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): David: LDPC still can be a MUST and the
clients will still be able to consume the results via shapes
[14:34] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): David: this will make the section simpler
[14:34] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Jim: I don't see the much demand for
LDPC in this context.
[14:35] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): David: I don't think SHOULD will be of
any help to promote the use of LDPCs.
[14:37] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Jim: MUST has risk of forcing some constraints
that have no value prop
[14:39] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): OPC-UA
[14:41] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): strong points: strong specs of profiles
and certification
[14:42] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): downside: 1200 pages+ in the ISO standards
[14:42] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Jim: OSLC has a different philosophy
[14:43] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpbc
[14:44] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Jim: is the LDPC MUST and no explicit
membership predicate are incompatible
[14:44] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Nick: again, that will make existing
2.0 servers non-3.0 compliant
[14:45] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Jim: it will inhibit integration
[14:45] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): David: it would be just a few more triples
[14:45] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Jim: products will be slow adopting this
[14:47] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Andrew: I believe we should consider
OSLC version header, as HTTP, TLS and others do
[14:50] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Nick: versioning would allow gradual
improvement. Jim: we need to encourage compatibility and have clients discover
new capabilities.
[14:50] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Andrew: what if we do two different capabilities
and support discovery
[14:51] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Nick: but that would place a lot of burden
on the impl: new predicate, new endpoint etc. + old clients won't discover
[14:52] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Andrew: agree, just trying to accomod
Jim's discovery requirement
[14:54] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Jim: what if we had the LDPC MUST, clients
would check for LDPC and if none exists, you check for the oslc membership,
finally, go for rdfs. Nick: RQM, DNG apps differ in the predicates; clients
are already complicated because the spec was imprecise.
[14:56] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): David: would require verbose triples
in the response. Jim: nothing esp. bad with this, there are some cases.
[14:57] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Jim: is MUST/SHOULD on LDPC consistent
here with the rest of the document?
[14:57] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Jim: LQE uses rdf:member
[14:57] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Nick: LQE is not a reference here
[14:58] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): David: the Q is whether LDPC requirement
should be upgraded to a MUST or remain a SHOULD.
[14:59] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): David proposes a vote whether whether
the LDPC requirement should be upgraded to a MUST.
[15:01] Nick Crossley (IBM): Propose that the spec say a query result MUST
be an LDPC - and that the subsequent requirements fit in with that (for
example, by using appropriate LDPC properties to use rdfs:member as a membership
predicate by default)
[15:02] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): +1
[15:02] Jim Amsden: 0
[15:02] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): 0
[15:02] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Seconded
[15:02] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: +1
[15:02] Martin Sarabura: +1
[15:03] Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH): Motion carried 

Given Nick's concern that this makes
the Query 3.0 spec incompatible with most implementations (an object he
stated in that meeting), we may want to reconsider. I'd like to discuss
this in today's meeting so I can wrap up the Query spec editorial work.
This is the only open issue I am aware of.

Best regards,
David
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU