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

Re: An IRC discussion with Alexandre Bertails re SSUE-19:

From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:06:40 -0400
Message-ID: <51B09770.6040409@w3.org>
To: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
CC: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 06/06/2013 09:26 AM, Roger Menday wrote:
>
>>> So I guess I disagree with Alexandre, who seems to think we can not
>>> succeed without a new media type.
>>> The way I see it, this group is actually *augmenting* the meaning of
>>> the Turtle media type (and probably other RDF media-types), by
>>> providing it with interaction semantics, captured by the LDP vocabulary.
>>>
>>> More precisely, to answer Alexandre's questions:
>>>
>>>     > * how do I know that <foo> is an LDPR?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, any resource that yields a Turtle representation becomes de
>>> facto an LDPR (even if read-only).
>>
>
> I think so too.

For the same reasons, should I consider <foo> as a named graph as
well, according to the SPARQL Graph Protocol?

>
> Then, if client discovers an linked LDPC, then this is the clue that it
> is a writable resource.

So I don't know that an LDPR is a writable resource until I find the
LDPC telling me it actually is?

>
>> Perhaps. Not sure. That seems to be too miniamlistic an interpretation
>> of an LDPR.
>
>>
>>>     > * how do I know that <foo> is neither an LDPC nor an LDPR?
>>>
>>>
>>> See above: if it yields Turtle, it *is* and LDPR.
>>> (granted, it would be useful to be able to tell the difference btw a
>>> read-only and a PUTable LDPR, though)
>>>
>>>     > * how do I know that I can interact with <foo> using the SPARQL
>>>     Graph Protocol?
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that in our scope? If so, I guess we should have a class or a
>>> property to state that about a given resource.
>>>
>>>     > * if I find out that <foo> a ldp:Container while looking at <bar>,
>>>     >  should I consider this information as authoritative?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, when you find the following HTML
>>>
>>>   <form action="foo" method="foo">
>>>
>>> at <bar>, do you believe it? Do you try and perform a POST on <foo>?
>>> I guess the answer is the same: if you trust the source, then yes,
>>> you're allowed to start interacting with <bar> as if it were an LDPC.
>
> When a form is submitted, the processor (indicated by the 'action'
> parameter) is doing something pretty similar to a LDPC. I suppose the
> HTML equivalent of issue-73, would be "list all of requests that have
> been processed". For me, this isn't very interesting because the
> information I need is in the documents I am browsing.

The semantics of <form> is defined in HTML, which tells the web
browser what to do with it. I don't have any problem with that.

Alexandre.

>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 14:06:54 UTC

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