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: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:34:39 -0700
Message-ID: <5152146F.90403@berkeley.edu>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-ldp@w3.org
hello kingley.

On 2013-03-26 14:14 , Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> It mentions URI and dereference.
> "..Turtle is a general-purpose assertion language; applications may
> evaluate given data
>      to infer more assertions or to dereference URIs ..."
> Of course it could be much more precise re. RDF based Linked Data.

but that's pretty much exactly what henry was linking to in the RDF 1.1 
spec. it vaguely hints at a possibility, does not say how to interact 
(probably assuming you just try a GET), and is read-only.

> Beyond hypermedia basics, we do have an omission re. RDF based Linked
> Data. That's were I believe our views converge :-)

calling the above "may statement" hypermedia basics is a very optimistic 
view of the world. keep in mind that not all URIs in RDF are hypermedia 
links. if your format uses URIs as identifiers, but provides no way to 
distinguish identifiers from hypermedia affordances, i wouldn't really 
call it a hypermedia format. i am with richard here, who just said: 
"[Turtle is] is fundamentally suited for hypermedia apps." it certainly 
is, but it needs hypermedia semantics to be a foundation for those apps, 
or those apps have to add the hypermedia semantics themselves, each of 
them individually.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:35:06 UTC

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