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: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:54:08 +0100
To: public-ldp@w3.org
Cc: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Message-ID: <1831624.cZJKi1otVH@owl>
On Sunday 18. November 2012 17.41.20 Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> Kjeltil, Ruben, all,


It is very interesting to read the whole discussion! Unfortunately, I'm 
still jet-lagged, backlogged and underslept after ISWC, so it'll take me a 
few days to respond more, so just a short comment for now.

> 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?

Well, yes, basically. Just that you can use any suitable description and 
any protocol, but RDF and HTTP is the most practical for us.

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

Yeah, that's nice! However, I think it needs to be explicit about write 
operations, I can't see that it is. So, that's mostly what I do with my 
vocabulary proposal, e.g. hm:replaced (for a PUT to an existing resource). 
They can then be refined for more detailed uses (such as updating your pizza 
order). That's the idea anyway, it remains to see if it is workable. :-)

However, I think it is important to have write operations explicit, so that 
clients doesn't have to just guess what they are allowed to expected to do, 
as that wouldn't scale if many operations are possible.


Received on Sunday, 18 November 2012 20:54:38 UTC

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