Re: forms, direction, query, etc …

Arnaud, 

I notice that your email is in reply to my email :)
Can I get some clarification please … ?

This topic - the mechanism of discovering from a resource what can be done to it, and then doing it - has surely to be on the table for LDP (?) Not all the solutions require SPARQL, I am quite sure of that. 

In my opinion, it MUST be possible to build a single generic client, which can successfully be used to navigate and negotiate any LDP "service". that's the test for having done RESTful Linked Data, IMO. 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. 

regards, 
Roger

On 21 Nov 2012, at 01:24, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:

> You guys should feel free to develop any proposals you'd like but, while I'm happy for the WG to weigh in on this in view of an actual proposal, I have to say that this seems quite far from what I think this WG is chartered to do. 
> 
> Putting aside the reliance on SPARQL for which several people have already raised concerns I don't think developing an elaborate query mechanism is on our plate, at least not in this version of the spec.
> 
> Again, I don't mean to stop you. Please, feel free to make a proposal. I just want to share with you my concern that this may be out of scope so that if you see me pressing this point later on you aren't surprised. Consider that a fair warning. :-) 
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote on 11/20/2012 02:04:26 AM:
> 
> > From: Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com> 
> > To: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>, 
> > Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org> 
> > Date: 11/20/2012 02:05 AM 
> > Subject: Re: forms, direction, query, etc … 
> > 
> > 
> > >> Henry opened up some discussion at the end of our phone 
> > conference today, regarding his proposal about forms and query. 
> > >> 
> > >> I've got to say that I thought Henry's proposal [1] was really
> > >> elegant.
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > >> I also think that it is a solution for a problem that is very 
> > relevant to LDP. 
> > >> 
> > >> If it has a flaw, it that a client needs to be SPARQL aware - 
> > which I don't think will help uptake. I made my proposal on this 
> > topic at [2]. I'll freely admit that it does not have the elegance 
> > of Henry's use of SPARQL to drive interaction from the client, but, 
> > what it does have is simplicity! It is sort of like "duck-typed 
> > creation" .... it doesn't offer anything elaborate (repeated, 
> > options, etc.) at the moment. 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the reminder for this subthread which was raised initially in
> > > the discussion about Issue-33... but... what exactly is the point that
> > > Henry was after during today's meeting ?
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure it is strictly related to issue 33 but maybe more to other
> > > issues about discovery of the expected POST content, etc.
> > > 
> > > Would you mind clarifying, and maybe propose a particular open issue we
> > > should tackle during the next meeting where Henry's proposal would help
> > > (providing that we got rid of the "opening raised issues phase" before
> > > ;) ?
> > 
> > hi Olivier, 
> > 
> > I am happy to have a go and summarise the state of this topic. 
> > This could be a starting point for discussions at the next meeting. 
> > 
> > Roger
> >