- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:19:19 +0000
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Niclas Hoyer <niclas@verbugt.de>, public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 7 Nov 2012, at 23:06, Nathan wrote: > My point is that I'm here in the hope that LDP will be a spec I can use for RWW, and more specifically for decentralized generic web accessible data storage providers which have some level of understanding of the data being used. As per the Socially Aware Cloud Storage and ReadWriteWeb design issues from TimBL a few years ago. To be honest, I don't understand what you mean by “generic data storage providers which have some level of understanding of the data being used”. To have some understanding, they need to be non-generic, no? > However, the momentum of the group seems to be increasingly oriented towards providing a specification which is geared towards rather limited CRUD functionality for server side applications which expose (part of) their API as Linked Data. I don't understand how providing CRUD for server-side applications that expose RDF inhibits the other thing. I heard you say that “using up” the POST method would prevent other uses of POST on the same resource. That's a fair point, and I do agree that LDP should facilitate moving any “POST endpoints” off the managed resource to a separate LDP-specific resource. It already does that, to some extent, because the “container resource” and the “subject resource” don't have to be the same. Best, Richard > > I wish I could explain this further in a way that made sense to people here, after all many of the people here fostered my own passion for the semantic web, and the web of data. > > Best, > > Nathan >
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 23:19:42 UTC