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

On 3/25/13 4:44 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello all.
>
> On 2013-03-25 13:36 , Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> +1000
>> -1000
>> If Erik is okay, which I believe he is, then I genuinely believe we have
>> a solution that addresses a broad profile of participants in this
>> endeavor. We also address a fundamental problem that dogs RDF re. 
>> clarity.
>
> just to make this crystal clear: i don't get to decide what the LDP WG 
> is doing. and in the past it seemed to me that the WG is mostly 
> leaning towards using generic RDF media types. it's not what i would 
> do, and like any other WG member, i am expressing my design 
> preferences and some justification for them. if the WG chooses to go a 
> different way, that's perfectly ok.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
I understand, I made that specific reference to you because you 
represent a very clear developer profile i.e., RESTafari that puffs 
HATEOS :-)

-- 

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 22:14:34 UTC