Re: Interaction model vs data model

hello kingsley.

On 2013-01-24 19:18 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>Bearing in mind your characterization of Content-Type as a protocol.
>What are the Content-Types supported by LDP? Hopefully, we can
>triangulate a route to clarity along this axis. Note, Linked Data
>doesn't need its own Content-Type since it covers RDF model based data
>representation and RESTful data access.

linked data is just data and therefore can perfectly well use regular RDF
media types. after all, it's basically just RDF with additional
constraints. however, since LDP is not just a data model but a protocol,
it should have a media type that indicates that conversations are adhering
to the constraints of the protocol, and that servers could for example
advertise their support of this particular protocol.

however, pragmatically speaking, it's fairly unlikely that LDP's
capabilities will actually be exposed as a media type. realistically
speaking, the best possible outcome i can see would be for LDP to define a
profile URI (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-profile-link), and
then to expose and use that profile URI for exposing through HTTP what a
server is capable of doing. ideally, this should even be exposed as a
media type parameter
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-profile-link-04#section-3.1), but
since no RDF media type currently supports a profile media type parameter,
this would require re-registration of the media types and thus might be
out of reach as something we can achieve within the LDP effort.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 15:24:25 UTC