- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:05 -0500
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <510ABCDD.4060607@openlinksw.com>
On 1/31/13 1:37 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote: > the other issue that it would be good if LDP had a presence in the uniform > interface of the web, so that it can be advertised and detected in > scenarios where discovery and dispatch is based on media types. it is > unlikely that LDP will define its own media type. Why not? It has no adverse on RDF whatsoever, even if its broken. Sometimes eating broken glass might be the only path to clarity. > it could be argued that > LDP could still be made visible by using profile media type parameters, > but even that would require that the various RDF syntaxes that might be > used to expose LDP all start supporting a profile parameter. Again, you speculate, but it isn't a problem for RDF. If that's what you need, then it can be done. RDF is dexterous. > this might > also be a tough sell to the larger RDF community. Not to anyone that understands RDF. A majority of the so called RDF community actually understand RDF. > if we use generic RDF > media types, LDP will be invisible on the media type level. See my comments above. The strength of RDF lies in its ability to bury every single one of these perceived obstacles :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 18:50:27 UTC