Re: Multiple resource representations during LDPC POST (5.4.1)

On 1/22/14 10:19 AM, John Arwe wrote:
> > 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 
> <http://w3.ibm.com/jct03019wt/bluepages/simpleSearch.wss?searchBy=Internet+address&location=All+locations&searchFor=johnarwe> 
>
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
>
John,

At this point, we should have a clear definition of what LDP is actually 
about. What is LDP? What problem does it address? How is it to used? I 
am sure your gut reaction might be "why is he asking these questions, at 
this stage?" Well, I am asking them because I should be able to describe 
LDP clearly to myself, at the very least.

A fundamental point that confuses me, repeatedly, is the fact that I am 
unsure as to the role of RDF i.e., is this RDF (in regards to what it 
actually is [1]) or is it just R-D-F syntactically (where actual entity 
relationships and relation semantics are at best human comprehensible, 
kinda) ?

If these matters where crystal clear I can assure you that Martynas 
wouldn't be as concerned as he is right now. Placing concepts such as: 
Linked Data, RDF, REST interaction patterns, URIs, URLs etc.. in an 
all-purpose bucket doesn't work. That's how the W3C has ended up 
producing a boatload of really useful standards that a majority of folks 
simply don't understand, let alone implement.

I should be able to add LDP to the glossary document [2] I maintain -- 
which is a description of the many standards in this realm from the W3C.

[1] http://bit.ly/1dUSAFG -- Description of RDF
[2] http://bit.ly/19NRwnB -- Glossary document that uses RDF to describe 
RDF and many other related standards from the W3C .

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen