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

Re: Proposal for containers

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:51:02 -0500
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD301797.E95F%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello henry.

On 2013-01-31 12:17 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>So I think we have worked out that a requirement for an AtomPub
>application of LDP is going to be a notion of profiles.

only if LDP wants to be visible on the web as a service. but then it's
required for LDP in any case, whether we have our design inspired by
AtomPub or not. simple example: imagine a meta-service providing a
switchboard for applications to work with collections. in the uniform
interface of the web, you'd use media types to indicate capabilities of
resources. so you'd say (and i am using some random syntax here)

http://example.com/service1: application/atom+xml (link to AtomPub service
document)
http://example.com/service2: application/ldp+turtle (link to LDP "service
document")

http://example.com/service3: application/ldpng+turtle (link to LDP-NG
"service document")


this is operating under the assumption that LDP will not remain the only
collection management protocol using RDF, but instead there will be an
alternative, an incompatible competitor called "LDP-NG". if we used
"text/turtle" as the media type, then clients would have no idea what to
expect, and wouldn't be able to follow the link to the service they want
to use.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 11:51:59 UTC

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