W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: ldp-ISSUE-48 (profiles): Profile mechanism is Needed [Linked Data Platform core]

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:13:36 -0500
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8C2D84A2-AE57-4F32-8A43-23BD452BFE5A@emc.com>
hello henry.

On Jan 31, 2013, at 22:27, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> The issue of media types or other is a side issue. 
> Those are just ways of signaling information. You can send
> this signal with media types, which is clumsy 
>  Content-Type: text/rdf; type="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#EntryProfile"
> or with an elegant link type 
>  Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#EntryProfile>; rel="profile"
> But neverymind. That is a minor issue. Either of those could
> easily be chosen.

i think now i know where the confusion comes from. profiles are not intended to signal "resource types" like this. they are intended to signal application profiles, just like HTML's profile attribute. we would not use profiles to signal entries or containers, we would just signal the fact that the interaction is within the scope of LDP.

> The issue here, is that you are claiming that one needs to define 
> somehow what appears in the graph, so that user agents can 
> know what to expect when the fetch a graph or send one. 
> We therefore need  a language  to specify these constraints.  We 
> cannot do it with DTDs because RDF does not have a precise 
> syntax. So XSLTs and XQueries would also not work.

that's why i suggested SPARQL might be a way of formalizing this, if we feel the need to do so. we can also just write down what's required, if we don't find a language that we think is a good tool for formalizing the protocol rules a bit more.


Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 00:14:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:45 UTC