- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:39:23 +0100
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Ashok,
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. What is behind it? I can
see that small or legacy devices may not produce RDF but that's not the
focus of the "Information Evolution" case. The descriptions and data
objects are all RDF.
In terms of the submission, with the netWorth example, what happens when
the container of assets changes?
Is there going to be any standard mechanism provided (optionally used)
to name the previous version of the container or is it left entirely to
the app ecosystem to define ways to link across versions of the
container (making it harder for a new app to use the information)?
Saying nothing about versioning of the information is an option for the
WG - the downside is that varying ad hoc mechanisms will arise.
Personally, I think that name schemes like
<http://example/resource>
:currentVersion <http://example/resource;v1.1> .
<http://example/resource;v1.1>
:previousVersion <http://example/resource;v0.9> .
have some merit; I do not have detailed proposal.
Andy
On 30/09/12 23:36, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> Andy:
> I'm guessing that resource constrained devices do not produce RDF.
> So, will a data mapping also be required in addition to the protocol
> redirection?
> All the best, Ashok
>
> On 9/30/2012 9:32 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> ACTION-15 Done.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements#Project_Membership_Information_:_Information_Evolution
>>
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 08:39:52 UTC