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

Re: Discovery/Affordances

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:00:56 -0700
To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF9E502A7C.CEE6D498-ON88257B88.00757BA3-88257B89.00527B75@us.ibm.com>
Hi Andy,

Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote on 06/12/2013 02:11:31 AM:

> ... my message was originally in response to the 
> complexity seemingly arising.  Is plain-simple HTTP valid interaction?

I think it really depends on what you mean by that. The spec defines a 
series of requirements that must be met, even if we were to define a 
minimal level of conformance for read-only LDPR-only implementations. Do 
all these happen to be part of what you call "plain-simple HTTP valid 
interaction"?

> 
> That said, I wil suggest that either having a level of conformance 
> for LDPR-only servers or a explicitly understood reason why such a 
> thing isn't helpful would be good. 
> 
> The lower the barrier to being a compliant LDP server, the more 
> widespread they (and clients) will be and the more data that can be 
> integrated.
> 
> Clearly, there is a tension between being so minimal as to be 
> useless, or so minimal that an application has to add a lot of app-
> specific functionality; this risks going round the loop on range of 
> applications in scope of the WG.
> 
> Is a simple key-value store where the key is a URI and the value 
> being graph data an LDP server?  How much more would it take to be one?

I think I understand what you're trying to get to but this is too vague of 
a question to be answered in general.

> 
>     Andy

--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 15:03:17 UTC

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