- From: BigBlueHat via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:40:49 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@azaroth42 the "interaction model" sounded promising for understanding this expectation, but it only resulted in using `Link` headers to specific the three types of containers. The question (relative to that) is what if your server only supports LDP Basic Containers, can store RDF-based things (JSON-LD), but really has no concept of what graphs are inside--hence the lack of the "smarter" Direct and Indirect Container support. If LDP clients will still Do The Right thing with regards to CRUD on those resources, then I guess we're fine. :smiley: However, if there's some other expectation here--which I'm not currently finding--then it's going to be harder / impossible to build a "dumb" LDP server--which is my aim at present. :wink: I'll certain use the LDP Non-RDF link header for things that are indeed *not* encodings of RDF. However, I don't want to say that about RDF-based documents (JSON-LD in this case) because they are indeed LDPRS's. Make sense? :smile: I think it's simpler than I'm making it at the end of the day. :city_sunset: -- GitHub Notif of comment by BigBlueHat See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/34#issuecomment-126727595
Received on Friday, 31 July 2015 15:40:58 UTC