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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:01:21 -0400
Message-ID: <5150AD11.3040504@openlinksw.com>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
CC: public-ldp@w3.org
On 3/25/13 3:50 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello kingsley.
>
> On 2013-03-25 12:43 , Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 3/25/13 2:41 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>>> sort of. but type is not a registered media type parameter of turtle,
>>> so you cannot actually to that. also, my suggestion would be to use
>>> profile instead
>>> (http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2013/03/on-profiles.html), but that
>>> one isn't a registered media type parameter either. but yes, what
>>> you're proposing is probably what we will have to do, given that it's
>>> unlikely that we will actually expose the LDP-ness of LDP resources at
>>> the media type level.
>> Why not?
>> What's wrong with media type: application/ld+turtle,
>> application/ldp+turtle or whatever else to end this most recursive line
>> of discussion and debate?
>
> absolutely nothing is wrong with that in my mind; it's actually the 
> opposite: i think that's what we should be doing from the REST 
> perspective. however, it seemed to me that whenever i suggested that 
> it would be good to expose LDP semantics on the media type level, the 
> majority opinion in the WG was that this is not what you normally do 
> for RDF-based designs, and that instead we should be exposing generic 
> RDF media types.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>

Okay, for the record, I support exposing RDF based Linked Data semantics 
via a specific media type. If I've been on the other side in the past, 
here is my official position retraction :-)

Generic RDF media types are problematic because they perpetuate a 
problematic misconception about RDF and Linked Data. To denote something 
with a URI != denoting something with a URI that resolves to the 
description of said URI's referent.

Conflating RDF simply undermines RDF's tangible virtues. IMHO., if LDP 
truly wants to deliver something that's useful it should seize the 
moment by killing off this eternal RDF & Linked Data conflation problem 
via a Linked Data or Linked Data Profile (LDP) media type.

RDF based Linked Data != RDF.
RDF based Linked Data is something that RDF enables you produce, most 
effectively.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 20:01:45 UTC

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