Re: Interaction model vs data model

hello all.

On 2013-01-24 13:32 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>>I think that we are making only trivial statements about type if one
>> can't predict some opperational behavior from that type. The most
>> practical type I can imagine is one that tells me if POSTing RDF will
>> append it (LDPR) or submit a new element to a container (LDPC).  To
>> that end, I think that LDPC and LDPR are sibling resources with some
>> common ancestor. It's probably worth identifying that ancestor as it
>> has a few properties common to both LDPCs and LDPRs, namely that GET
>> gets you some relevant RDF and that it's defined by LDP.
>Exactly :-) Thanks for making this clear.
>> 
>> 
>>> For what it's worth, section 5.2.1 of the LDP spec [2] states that "A
>>> Linked Data Platform Container must also be a conformant Linked Data
>>> Platform Resource." I've always read that as meaning that an LDPC is
>>>an 
>>> LDPR.
>>> 
>>> What am I missing?
>I think it is possible that as things change and as we formalise things,
>we notice that there are incompatibilities in terms of operational
>behavior between different types of things that we had not noticed
>earlier. 
>It is pretty tricky. We may even find that new types of things start
>emerging,...

i think this kind of exercise might be very useful. however, it would be
unfortunate if our re-defined ontology would say that an LDPR is something
and that an LDPC is something else, and that both have a common ancestor.
i am simply saying this because in the REST community, the term "resource"
is very well established, and everything that has a URI is a resource.
thus, to say that we have LDPC "things" that have URIs but are not
resources certainly would cause quite a bit of confusion for readers of
the spec.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 12:45:07 UTC