W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-http-desc@w3.org > June 2005

Declaring restrictions on processed data

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:11:51 -0400
To: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@topicmapping.com>
Cc: public-web-http-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050602151151.GG11241@markbaker.ca>

Hi Jan,

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:26:59PM +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> 
> 
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 9:41 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> 
> >and each allowed transition is a combination of HTTP method and a  
> >definition of what may
> >be sent as a message body (aka form)
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I have allways wanted to ask you what you would think about adding a  
> means to express
> 'accepted RDF schemas' to RDF forms but also felt that that was  
> somehow missing the
> point.

Yes, because schemas change relatively frequently, just as with XML
schemas.  I think media types are the right level of granularity here.
Containers can reject stuff that won't duck-cast(*) to anything they
recognize.

>I just realized that I would actually need some way of  
> specifying accepted
> RDF graphs (e.g. via patterns[1]) to use RDF forms for what I have in  
> mind. What are
> your feelings about such an addition?

I don't see the need.  But if you wanted to sketch out an example
to prove me wrong, feel free.

FWIW, I think this is actually an issue generic to forms language at
large, not RDF Forms specifically, so I think it's worth discussing
here.

 (*) cast using duck typing

Mark.
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 15:11:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:47:19 UTC