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

Re: Speech Acts, indexicals, REST & RDF

From: Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:30:12 +0100
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B7AEE174-202A-47BA-9CFD-83C75236F4EF@uk.fujitsu.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>

hi Henry, 

>> Actually, It wasn't just clarification I was after .... because, I still don't think that the LDP interpretation of creation is that we are POSTing a Graph (which then gets grounded) - after all, a child isn't given whole to the mother. 
> 
> The notion of notion relative-uri-graphs - "direct graphs" in [8] - is not the same as a the notion of a plain rdf-graph. If you want to use a metaphor of child and the mother, the child say being in the context of the mother's womb, and so dependent on it - then the "direct graphs" is such a thing.

... don't forget the important role of the father.
Accepted(202) for processing -> processing -> Created(201). 

> It is incomplete without its context - as far as certain types of reasoning goes that is. 
> 
> (It would be interesting to work out what kind of reasoning one can still do with such a graph, but not one we need to solve for this issue.)
> 
>> I prefer the function described in [5] as "providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a form, to a data-handling process". Isn't form submission is a good model ? - and it would be good to read more discussion about the LDP equivalent of forms (?)
> 
> Form submission works with HTTP POST, and we are using the same mechanism, as the quotes in the mail referring to the spec show.  For even more details see the post by Steve Battle
> 
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Oct/0181.html

> The relative-uri-graph concept should help in explaining what is being exchanged between client and server semantically, without having to do this syntactically. This type of simplification could help make ldp a lot more general than other protocol specifications.

General question: with regards to "explaining what is being exchanged between client and server", what did you have in mind for your approach ? Advertising the type(s) of the resource which can be POSTed ?  

regards, 
Roger

>>> 
>>> 
>>> [0] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/20
>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frege
>>> [2] http://www.logicomix.com/en/
>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
>>> [4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9.3
>>> [5] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9.5
>>> [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Austin#How_to_Do_Things_With_Words
>>> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/
>>> [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdb-direct-mapping/#emp-addr
>>> [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/story.html


Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 12:30:42 UTC

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