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 20:59:22 -0700
Message-ID: <51526E9A.3080708@berkeley.edu>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-ldp@w3.org
hello kingsley.

On 2013-03-26 05:43 , Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> I believe Erik's "text/plain" and "text/html" analogy frames the problem
> nicely. For instance, look back to the thread between yourself and Andy
> about relative URIs and RDF graphs [1][2]. We have a single media type
> serving two distinct functions i.e., graph expression (relative URIs are
> fine here) and actual graph serialization (relative URIs aren't
> acceptable here).

actually, after re-reading a couple of threads, i think it's actually 
better to think of text/sgml and text/html as the two similarities to 
the discussion we're having. would the web have happened if there was 
just text/sgml, a highly structured and very successful document format 
for content management? if you had the chance today, would you not 
create text/html and instead rely on text/sgml only? what would be the 
consequences of these choices? SGML was and is a hugely successful data 
model/format, but it only really took off when it turned hypermedia...

it's hard to imagine how it could have happened without a ubiquitous 
hypermedia format (based on SGML) making itself known and recognizable. 
i think is actually the much more interesting analogy to think about 
instead of text/plain...

cheers,

dret.
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 03:59:49 UTC

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