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

Re: ldp-ISSUE-33 (pagination): how to structure functionality

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:06:22 -0500
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
CC: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <CCC7F4C8.BEFE%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello roger.

On 2012-11-13 10:52 , "Roger Menday" <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>if your goal is to build an RDF-centric version of XForms, then you can
>>do
>> that and XForms would be a useful thing to look at and see what worked
>> well, and what didn't. however, i'd say that doing this is outside of
>>the
>> scope of the WG, and all we can hope for is to use existing specs. URI
>> Templates are different from XForms in that the model is much simpler
>>that
>> XML or RDF; it's just a bunch of name/value pairs
>RDF is a simple as name/value pairs, IMHO, and way simpler than XML.
>In the primer that LDP produces, we need to convey this message, I
>believe. 

this is mostly a matter of taste, i believe. but when it comes to
communicating models, then RDF (like XML) is more than just name/value
pairs. when i am designing a service that expects a certain input, i need
a schema to express this expectation. XML has a variety of languages to
choose from, RDF as well (even though the concept of "validation" is not
really all that well covered in RDF). we have both options:

- specify URI Templates as the service surface, and thus use its model as
the way how services can expose the expected input.

- specify something that would be RDF-based and would allow client to
understand what kind of RDF they are supposed to submit.

the general problem is representation-independent: you want some template
that the server exposes to be populated by the client, and you need some
representation to drive this interaction. your choice of representation
will determine the expressivity of the templates that can drive this
process.

>>(with a couple of twists
>> such as repeating values and more, depending on the level
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570#section-1.2). but maybe that's better
>> than nothing and good enough to drive some of the things we'd like to
>>do.
>I can't see how URI templates can be used for directing how request
>bodies are constructed.
>How would that work ?

in HTML, you simply stick the serialization that clients otherwise append
to the URI into the body. that's one way of doing it. if you want to drive
clients to construct RDF bodies, you need some templating language for
that.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 21:07:17 UTC

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