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

Re: LDP would benefit from being RESTful

From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:04:33 +0100
Cc: public-ldp@w3.org, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Message-Id: <4223B5F6-60C0-468F-BF19-27C25E36735B@ugent.be>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Hi all,

On 16 Nov 2012, at 19:57, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:

> 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. :-)

As one of the people who discussed this with Kjetil,
I think it *really* makes sense to try so see things from this perspective.
Just like Mark said, I believe we’re too much in the process
of making a protocol at HTTP level,
while LDP is the chance to do something different.

So the crucial question is:
is it still possible to go in a fundamentally different discussion
than the one we’re going in right now (even if it’s just trying)?

At the moment, this seems hard, since a lot of the spec is already there.
But this alone should not be a justification to continue the way we’re going.


Received on Sunday, 18 November 2012 15:05:49 UTC

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