Re: ISSUE-36: Summary of ways of making containers

hello pierre-antoine.

On Jan 26, 2013, at 20:51, "Pierre-Antoine Champin" <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> Yes; by "capturing the constraints", I was mostly considering describing those constraints in the LDP recommendation, as anyway there is no way (that I know of) to formally describe them.

formally describe for me usually means "spec language is good enough", and if the spec defines the profile URI, then we have created an association between that identifier, and the description of the spec.

> Another nice thing that I like about profiles is that they are orthogonal to content-types. So the LDP profile could be used with various RDF serialization, not just with turtle.

yes, that's one of the ideas. for example, podcasts (one example from the draft) then can be clearly indicated in RSS and Atom feeds, whereas now they are (regrettably) only allowed to be based on RSS.

> For the moment, I don't see any need to specify it anywhere else than in the HTTP headers.

depends on what we use them for. if we want to use profiles for entries as well, then when listing a collection you'd get the profile identifier of the collection, which could be in the HTTP header (and only there). however, if individual entries could have profile identifiers as well, then you'd expect them as part of the collection data you're GETting, right?

> And even if we wanted to specify it in the RDF graph, nothing prevents us from defining an IRI ldp:profile with the same meaning as the RFC5988-Link "profile". Of course, a better solution would be to have a common IRI prefix for all link relation types registered according to RFC 5988. But defining it is obviously out of scope for this WG.

good point. and it's not just link relations (but these most obviously, because they likely should be predicates in an RDF model). the web has quite a number of relevant identifiers for concepts that are not URIs, and the problem of how to identify them in RDF probably pops up in various places where the web and RDF intersect. i am not aware of a general approach to solve this problem, but it might be better to solve it in a coordinated way instead of coming up with a solution for each individual registry.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Sunday, 27 January 2013 09:08:10 UTC