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

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

From: Mark Baker <mark@zepheira.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:03:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CALcoZirDEzBF+H5F1uOW8DQWyDx81FDnMmNg5Yx1DksuxuJx7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: public-ldp@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> hello richard.
>> What's an LDP client supposed to do when it sees, say, a document that
>> professes to be an ldp:Container, but is served using text/turtle? I suppose
>> it would have to treat it as an opaque document, and not treat it as an LDP
>> container?
> same as a text/plain that contains HTML but is served as text/plain: it's a
> plain view of layered semantics not exposed by the resource.

I suppose I'm missing the point behind Richard's question, as I'm not
sure what makes a text/turtle representation of an ldp:Container
"invalid" in this way. But no matter the reason, a Turtle response
containing an ldp:Container declaration has a single meaning well
understood to everybody here (and more, as it becomes standardized of
course). There is no possible way to change the meaning of that
message in the way suggested; neither HTTP, Turtle, or RDF provides
any "hook" to enable it (and if anything but HTTP were used, it would
be a layering violation to do so).

Later, Richard wrote;
>The RESTafarians just need to open their minds a bit to embrace a point of view that interaction semantics can also be specified in RDF vocabularies :-)

FWIW, this RESTafarian - and the one would coined the term :) - is
totally on side with you here. We don't need to fork the Semantic Web.

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 04:03:43 UTC

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