W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core]

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 10:25:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CALcoZirV2JZatwmbG0wH5jLUnQ5e9Z+OQoKvWu+66JO18kuf6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Sorry for the delay - I had temporarily lost access to my Gmail account.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Andy Seaborne
<andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 21/10/12 22:19, Mark Baker wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> Can BPR clients talk to generic RFC2616 servers? No. Should they? No.
>>
>>
>> Whoa, that was unexpected. Before I pick apart why that's an awful
>> idea, I'd like to ask whether others agree or disagree.
>
>
> LDP should be defined by the specific data exchanged, not by specialization
> of HTTP.
>
> And in the case of LDP-R/BPR, there isn't much "specific data": it's RDF,
> "The subject is typically the BPR itself", there must be an rdf:type, etags
> required.
>
> Looks to me like BPR clients can talk to lots of things.

Well said, Andy.

>
> Containers are a whole different ball game.

Agreed. When HTTP bundles two separate but important semantics into
one - "append" and "process" into "POST" - it creates problems when
reasoning about interactions with containers.

Mark.
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 14:25:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:42 UTC