Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM)

On 2/6/15 6:31 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 01/29/2015 06:55:33 PM:
>
>> BTW wouldn't it have been better to use "oslc:shape" instead of
>> "oslc:instanceShape", because you don't really talk about "instances"
>> (of classes)?
> Holger,
>
> Historically, we first defined oslc:resourceShape as a way to link a shape
> with a service endpoint URI (essential a container) where you could create
> resources via POST or query them via GET.
>
> However, we needed a way to support PUT operations. When a client GETs a
> resource it can look in it for an oslc:instanceShape triple. That tells
> the client how it can modify the resource and PUT it back to the server.

Would it also work to return the latter information by other means, e.g. 
as HTTP response header outside of the RDF model? Whenever you inject 
"system" triples, you risk unwanted side effects. For example, if a 
client displays the properties of the GET resource, it would have to 
filter out these triples from display, so why not make this step in advance?

Holger

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 22:41:48 UTC