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

Re: Discovery/Affordances (Issue-32/Issue-57)

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:34:33 -0400
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
CC: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <CDDBAC32.12C16%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello arnaud.

On 2013-06-10 15:53 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>My understanding is that clients should not dereference the profile URI
>and we could do nothing more than defining its use in the spec by simply
>adding that LDP servers should advertise their LDPness by adding the LDP
>profile Link header.

yes, that would be in line with the general constraints of how "profile"
is defined. it's my old mantra of "every link is a URI but not every URI
is a link". which by the way makes a lot of sense in RDF-land where no URI
is a link. and since we would only serve profile links in headers
(afaict), even looking at the RDF with linked data goggles on would still
work, because the profile URI would not be in the RDF content.

>In addition, for documentation purposes, we should have a short HTML
>document that explains what this profile is about, pointing to the RFC
>and the LDP spec so that if someone where to dereference the profile URI
>they would get some useful information, just like we do for namespaces.
>Is there anything else?

that sounds useful and sufficient. i would take some of the nicely done
XML namespace web pages for some w3c specs as an example, that basically
say "hello, i am namespace X", and then link to the resources that may be
interesting to read when trying to understand what that thing is all about.

http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace
http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform

>What about versioning? Should we use something version specific like
>http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/profile-1.0? Do you have any recommendations?

good point and probably something i should have included in the spec, at
least informally. there is no versioning model, so as long as future
versions don't break this one (i.e., as long as things remain
interoperable between versions), using the same identifier is fine. when
things break when you still look at them with your v1 goggles, then you
will have to mint a new profile URI, but personally, i would not call it
"1.0" now, and instead just wait what happens. should LDP x.y break
things, then you can always mint a new one, without making people nervous
right now by already including a version identifier.

if that happens in a couple of years, maybe the RDF media types will have
a profile media type parameter, and then you could send requests for an
LDP resource asking for
text/turtle;profile="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/profile" or
text/turtle;profile="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/profile/2.0" explicitly,
allowing clients and servers to negotiate at runtime which LDP
interactions to engage in.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 23:35:31 UTC

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