W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > July 2015

Re: [web-annotation] Make Turtle support optional?

From: BigBlueHat via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:12:37 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-126004414-1438186356-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
>From http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#h-ldprs-get-turtle
> 4.3.2.1 LDP servers MUST respond with a Turtle representation of the
 requested LDP-RS when the request includes an Accept header 
specifying text/turtle, unless HTTP content negotiation requires a 
different outcome [turtle].

What is the determination that a resource is an LDP-RS? Is that made 
by the server? Is it made by the client?

Can a "dumb" implementation of an LDP Basic Container (say a 
filesystem) simply send all resources in the media type they were 
stored with? And if it does, will LDP clients immediately jump to 
RDF-related conclusions if the response media type is one that encodes
 a graph?

Essentially, could I wrap a filesystem directory with some simple 
Python (implementing GET, POST, PUT, DELETE etc), store some JSON-LD 
for the container and update that container JSON-LD doc when a write 
happens, and still have an LDP client Do The Right Thing if it were 
pointed at this "minimal" LDP server (if it even qualifies)?

Curious @akuckartz @azaroth42 @melvincarvalho if you think that'd be 
feasible.

It's essentially what I started to attempt here...just using a 
slightly smarter "filesystem" :wink:
https://github.com/BigBlueHat/ldp-on-couchdb

-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by BigBlueHat
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/34#issuecomment-126004414
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2015 16:12:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:38 UTC