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

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

From: Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 16:27:59 +0100
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>
Message-ID: <D0DED62D-2081-45F8-B74B-7AB1B6E4D8F8@uk.fujitsu.com>
To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
>>>>> * 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?

Pass :)

> 
>> 
>> 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?

Yes. But, I don't think it is that difficult to find is it (??) ... normally, the LDPC is described in the same document in as the LDPR ... (I kind of think that it is more natural to link *to* the LDPC - and that is why I raised Issue-51). But, the information should be there when it is done the other way round. 


> 
>> 
>>> 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.

So, in my view it is our mission in LDP (and perhaps beyond) to define the semantics of the ldp: vocab such that it can give us a form construction which can then be used by a generic LDP client. 

Roger




Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 15:28:31 UTC

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