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

Re: LDP Minutes of June 3 - straw-poll ?

From: Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:13:47 +0100
CC: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AF53826D-4B2D-46E4-B115-5E46AB0BED0F@uk.fujitsu.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> At the end of the teleconf yesterday, you were leading us towards a straw-poll around the membershipXX (and related) issues. I thought that might be quite interesting. I don't think it is simply a case of is there is a fixed name (or not) for the relationship between things inside boxes. 
>>>> 
>>>> My characterisation: 
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Managing Documents (about Things) in Boxes 
>>>> 2. Use Boxes to help managing Things (which might be inside Documents)
>>> 
>>> Web Interactions are always about interactions with information resources, be they
>>> LDPCs ( boxes ) and LDPRs ( usually Documents )
>>> 
>>> Documents speak about things. Things may nor may not be inside boxes. Certainly most
>>> things are neither LDPRs or LDPCs. There are apples, oranges, spiders, cats, meetings,
>>> asteroids, that have been around way before LDPCs have been. These things are not
>>> managed by LDPCs: Information about them is collected in LDPRs.
>>> 
>>> So 1. Managing documents in LDPCs, given that the documents speak about things
>>> gives you all the tools you need to speak about everything in the known universe
>>> and beyond. LDP is in the end very simple.
>> 
>> I hope so ... 
>> 
>> No.1 is kind of like LDized-ATOM.
>> No.2 is closer to the notion of read/write LD. 
> 
> Not really. When we have a good PATCH format you'll be able to efficiently 
> change LDPRs. You can already PUT things now. Both of those give
> you Read/Write.
> 
>> 
>> I would like LDP to provide the protocol basis for manipulating Things.
> 
> We can all dream. :-)
> You need to think declaratively on the semantic web. Can you express
> what you want declaratively, as in statments that the LDPC will guarantee
> to be true? Then you are closer to thinking in semweb terms, and don't risk
> falling into the RPC trap ( you know: XMLRPC, SOAP, ... )
> 
> 
>> That why I say that Boxes are just a means to an end (rather than the end themselves). Boxes just contain the membershipTriples.
> 
> Boxes are LDPCs if I understand. The membershipXX are really attempts to declare certain things.
> 
>> 
>>> The use case people are trying to solve with the propertyXX relations I think needs to
>>> be worked out and described carefully. The the idea would be to find some patterns 
>>> that allow you to  satisfy the use case of adding  relations in connected LDPRs when creating an LDPR.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I believe that no.2 is where more applications are.    
>>> 
>>> Since you can do everyting with 1, you can't claim there are more applications in 2.
>> 
>> That's true. 
>> So one can do everything with both models :) 
> 
> I was saying you can do everything with 1. What is up with 2 
> I don't know. It is really not clear.
> 
>> Which one is the mainstream developer going to be happier with ? 
> 
> Something that works. I am sure 1 works. 2 is not clear at all.
> 1 is Atom semanticised: devs can leverage a lot of knowledge to 
> understand that. 2 seems like OO thinking applied to the web, which
> seems like XMLRPC.

So, no.2 is interesting because I think it is the best basis for doing hyperRDF, and that seems pretty far away from the accusations you are making. Anyway, you can't say "don't understand no.2" and then toss around "it's just XMLRPC" !! I am trying to understand why you want to do semanticisedATOM btw ... :) 

Roger



Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 14:14:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:51 UTC