W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > March 2013

Re: A modest attempt to re-open ISSUE-20

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:19:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CALcoZipArpQAEp+=+R8MeNNSxJ73LiiXTMkZHZtrKB5qNT-+-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@apache.org>
Cc: (wrong string) čius <martynas@graphity.org>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>, public-ldp-wg@w3.org, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 2013-03-15 4:56 AM, "Reto Bachmann-Gmür" <reto@apache.org> wrote:
> I think this is an important point. A by the hypertext requirement of REST a REST client should need nothing more than an entry URI and a shared media type to be able to fully use a REST service. No spec reading should be needed except for understanding the media type. Now for Semantic REST service in my opinion the common media type is trivially given and the requirement should be the common ontology. So the specification of a Semantic REST service is nothing but specifying the ontology.

Exactly. Anything else introduces an unnecessary, large degree of
tight coupling between client and server as it completely nullifies
the concept and value of the uniform interface. It's not REST, and
IMO, it's not even the Web. It's a partially parallel, tiny Web, where
existing HTTP/RDF clients can't meaningfully interoperate with LDP-BP
servers, and new LDP-BP clients can't do the same with existing
HTTP/RDF servers.

Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 23:19:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:10 UTC