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

Re: Section 4: LDPR/non-LDPR formal definitions

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:37:43 -0700
Message-ID: <514C7AC7.8060508@berkeley.edu>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, public-ldp@w3.org
hello richard.

On 2013-03-22 7:50 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2013, at 13:52, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>> There is still a question whether binaries (images, etc) are non-LDPRs
>> or if they too are LDPRs.
> I think they will typically not be LDPRs (because LDPRs need a Turtle representation, and in general I don't expect LDP implementations to provide one for binaries). But right now I can't see a reason for *requiring* them to be non-LDPRs. So I'd say the two classes are potentially overlapping, but neither is a subclass of the other.

i am a little confused now. from the REST perspective, these things are 
whatever they return as their media type when you GET them, so their 
nature is determined/controlled by themselves. we just link them into a 
container by adding their identifier as a content link. i am a bit 
unclear how we could possibly claim that they are LDP resources (unless 
by pure coincidence they would actually be LDP resources, which of 
course is a possibility, but an edge case). a resource's "nature" on the 
web is determined by its media type, and LDP does not even have control 
over these resources, since you can link to anything.

thanks and cheers,

dret.
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 15:38:42 UTC

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