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

Re: LDP would benefit from being RESTful

From: (wrong string) čius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:41:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE35VmzORjyqJmMnymOjC87ezkLiXfBT-1RLGi7Op3k8NgVdRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Cc: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>, public-ldp@w3.org, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Kjeltil, Ruben, all,

would I be right to understand that "hypermedia as the engine of
application state" is basically a state machine, where state is
described as RDF and managed with HTTP?

In that case, I was proposing the same approach, summarized in this post:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2012Nov/0004.html

Martynas
graphity.org

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:
> 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 were 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 were going in right now (even if its 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 were going.
>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2012 15:41:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 18 November 2012 15:41:48 GMT