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

Re: ISSUE-26 Creation model for LDP, proposal

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:24:09 -0500
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD22FF17.CD14%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello arnaud.

On 2013-01-18 19:44 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>IBM Rational had the same need of being
>able to communicate to the client what the resources they can create look
>like. They ended up defining something called Resource Shape [1].
>"In some cases,
>to create resources and to query those that already exist within an OSLC
>Service, OSLC clients needs a way to learn which properties are commonly
>used in or required by the service. Resource Shape Resources meet this
>need by providing a machine-readable definition of an OSLC resource type."
>This is one feature we (IBM) decided
>not to include in the Linked Data Basic Profile submission for the sake
>of keeping the scope limited to a set of core features but we are
>in exploring in the future. I would say this is out of scope for this WG

very interesting, thanks for the link. this may be the missing
"schema/validation" piece that is so important for many service-oriented
interactions: how can services expose descriptions of expectations that
are not hard-coded in the protocol, but must be discoverable at runtime?

i am wondering whether these ResourceShapeResources have been reused in
other places/projects, or what kind of workaround other places/projects
have developed to be able to expose their expectations of what clients
should provide.


Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 13:25:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:44 UTC