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

Re: LDP would benefit from being RESTful

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:57:52 +0100
To: public-ldp@w3.org
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Message-ID: <3368779.BJOjS8nfiF@owl>
On Wednesday 14. November 2012 13.58.33 David Booth wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 10:28 -0800, Erik Wilde wrote:
> > [ . . .  ] RDF isn't 
> > RESTful it itself because it's not a hypermedia format. 
> 
> Huh?  I'm baffled by that comment.  Why do you say RDF is not a
> hypermedia format?   For one thing, RDF is composed almost entirely of
> URIs, i.e., links.  How much more link-ful can you get?  

Erik is partially right: By itself, RDF is a hypermedia format only on a 
very, very superficial level. 

I'd like to encourage everybody to do the exercise to go Mike Amundsen's 
hypermedia classification: http://amundsen.com/hypermedia/hfactor/
You will quickly realize that RDF, out of the box, is a hypermedia only on 
the LO level.

However, as I show in my ESWC LAPIS2012 presentation, see
http://folk.uio.no/kjekje/2012/lapis2012.xhtml
RDF can be made to be a very powerful hypermedia type by fairly trivial 
means. In fact, it can easily meet all but one of Amundsen's criteria (I 
just realised that LE can be met using data URIs).

I've been talking with people F2F on ISWC about this, and I hope I have 
convinced some that this is the direction one should be going. And I really 
don't think this is out of the scope of the charter, to the contrary, if 
this is done right, it is what the charter really means. :-)

Best,

Kjetil
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 18:58:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 November 2012 18:58:19 GMT