- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:49:11 -0500
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
On 2013-02-07 17:41 , "Pierre-Antoine Champin" <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr> wrote: >I have to strongly disagree with you. I think the 'profile' thing is very >nice, especially because it is (concrete) syntax agnostic, hence well fit >to RDF. Indeed, the same profile URI could be used with different RDF >formats: > > text/turtle;profile=http://w3.org/ldp > application/rdf+xml;profile=http://w3.org/ldp > text/n-triple;profile=http://w3.org/ldp > >and mean exactly the same thing, namely something in the line of > > The conveyed graph must contain a triple of the form <> rdf:type X, > where X is one of the classes defined in the LDP ontology; > if X is ldp:Container, <> MUST have the following properties: ... > if X is ldp:Resource, <> MUST have the following properties: ... > >Whether those constraint are syntactical (i.e. the required triples must >actually *be* there) or semantic (i.e. the required triples may be merely >inferred) is another question, although I think the profile should >specified which inference regime should > be used to interpret the content. > > pa > >PS: I know that the media types above do not currently support the >'profile' parameter. On the other hand, the RDF working group is still >active (well, will be if its extension request is accepted :-/), so it's >the perfect time to suggest this change. I noticed > that, for a start, JSON-LD already just adopted it ><http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-01-29/#resolution-3>. thanks, all very well put! as soon as the RFC is out, my plan was to evangelize a bit more. it should be out in the next few weeks, i guess. cheers, dret.
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 16:50:14 UTC