W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Links and graphs

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:54:08 -0800
Message-ID: <50CFA290.2080402@berkeley.edu>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, LDP <public-ldp@w3.org>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
hello kingsley.

On 2012-12-17 10:13 , Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> I believe LDP is based on the following:
> 1. RDF data model -- an entity relationship data model endowed with
> explicit machine and human comprehensible semantics
> 2. Linked Data -- structured data based on the RDF model
> 3. HTTP -- data access protocol that's decoupled from data
> representation formats
> 4. RDF data formats -- Turtle (MUST) and others (MAYBE).
> If the above is true, why do you keep on recycling the same debate
> topics in different guises?

i am simply trying to keep us from making avoidable mistakes. HTTP is 
not a data access protocol. if it were, we would just use FTP. the "H" 
is there for a reason: HTTP clients are supposed to navigate through an 
interlinked set of resources, which make their interaction capabilities 
discoverable through HTTP's uniform interface. as soon as we start 
treating HTTP as data access, and address issues in RDF that should be 
addressed on the HTTP layer, we make ourselves incompatible with those 
99% of today's web who don't speak RDF. if we "hide" issues necessary 
for interaction in RDF instead of exposing it in HTTP concepts, we make 
ourselves invisible to the majority of users that we see as possible 
adopters of LDP. afaict, we would treat short-term convenience of not 
trying to be good HTTP citizens, for the long term disadvantage that we 
would be just another well-behaving web service (see mark baker's 
earlier comments about "shouldn't we try to be friendly to anybody 
speaking HTTP?", and of course we should).


Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 22:54:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:09 UTC