Re: Interaction model vs data model

On 29 Jan 2013, at 20:17, Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:

>>>> <> a ShoppingCartContainer;
>>>> ldp:membershipPredicate :order .
>>>> 
>>>> and the client  now knows that if he posts something like
>>>> 
>>>> <> a Order;
>>>> content [ a BarbieDoll ];
>>>> for <http://joe.example/#me >;
>>>> address <http://joe.example/#address> .
>>> 
>>> I think this kind of example can join the BugTracker for input about doing "services" with LDP. 
>>> 
>>> I do think that one of the good things about REST is that it eliminates pre-knowledge for the client. For example, there is magic in your example, i.e., the client has to know it is a Toyshop. It could be a selling Pizza .... and then what ?
> 
>> Now your question is good one: how do you delimit the type of things ordered.
>> There are many possible answers. One would be to restrict the order relation
>> using an owl restriction on the elements of an rdf collection named by 
>> reference. Clearly more work is to be done there...
> 
> In my proposal for this kind of thing at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Dec/0118.html I'm taking large amounts of inspiration from HTML. Therefore, to accomplish the above, we just need a select/option element for a robot ... i.e., we might have a "suggested" property which points to a LDP container - this means pick your type of Doll from the contents of this container. For similar (copying-html) reasons, I prefer POSTing sets of properties, rather than POSTing a graph. 

"I prefer POSTing sets of properties", which means that you are losing context. What is a property of? Some subject
presumably. The aim is to make everything as explicit as possible for reasons I gave earlier

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jan/0327.html

So starting with a good ontology is very important. Have ou found a good bug ontology? You should talk to Olivier
Berger who is following the work here, and who has been working on a bug ontology for quite a few years
now.


> 
> Looking forward to more "service" discussions. 
> 
> regards, 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/