Re: Multiple resource representations during LDPC POST (5.4.1)

> are you saying that it is more important for a Linked Data Platform to
> support binary resources than to use existing terminology and build on
> established RDF standards like SPARQL? The binary use case is far from
> convincing to me.

Martynas, the LDP working group has had consensus that the containers 
interaction pattern(s) (which in the large are "just HTTP") are useful for 
resources beyond RDF.  We have a use cases document saying what's in scope 
based on WG consensus [1].  Not every use case should be expected to speak 
to every user.

HTTP, representations, resources, and the like are equally established 
standards and terminology, and LDP uses them.  Some people would no doubt 
argue that HTTP et al. are more established; it doesn't really matter 
which any one of us thinks is "more X" given that LDP uses both.

SPARQL might scope itself to RDF resources; that's fine.  LDP does not 
scope itself identically, it was a conscious choice (WG consensus, not 
mine), and that's the reason for the text being the way it is.  You are 
free to disagree with the WG's consensus choices, but when the 
alternatives you propose operate at a different scope it's unsurprising if 
LDP does not simply say "oh, right, our bad".


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario