W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core]

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:56:55 +0100
Message-ID: <50850A57.6040407@epimorphics.com>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org


On 21/10/12 22:19, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:

>> Can BPR clients talk to generic RFC2616 servers? No. Should they? No.
>
> Whoa, that was unexpected. Before I pick apart why that's an awful
> idea, I'd like to ask whether others agree or disagree.

LDP should be defined by the specific data exchanged, not by 
specialization of HTTP.

And in the case of LDP-R/BPR, there isn't much "specific data": it's 
RDF, "The subject is typically the BPR itself", there must be an 
rdf:type, etags required.

Looks to me like BPR clients can talk to lots of things.

Containers are a whole different ball game.

	Andy

>> If a client is designed for BPR servers, it can only be expected to work with BPR servers.
>> Unless it's also a generic HTTP client. But then, it will apply the regular HTTP rules
>> for non-BPR resources (otherwise, itís not a generic HTTP client).
>
> Oh my ... :(
>
> Mark.
>
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 08:57:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:32 UTC