Re: 4.1.9 is obscure or too restrictive

On 01/12/2013 12:23 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello.
>
> On 2013-01-12 16:06 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>> [[
>> 4.1.9 LDPRs must use at least one RDF triple to represent a link
>> (relationship) to another resource. In other words, having the source
>> resourcešs URI as the subject and the target resourcešs URI as the object
>> of the triple representing the link (relationship) is enough and does not
>> require the creation of an intermediate link resource to describe the
>> relationship.
>> ]]
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#general
>> This seems to be saying more than that there should be at least 1 triple
>> in an LDPR.
>> It seems to be saying that there must be at least one triple where the
>> subject or the object link to a different resource which are in different
>> documents. Or it is trying to say that IF  links can be made to other
>> resource they only require one triple.
>> I really don't know. Any clarifications from the editors on the intention
>> of this passage?
>
> i guess this is primarily an indication of the general problem how to
> separate LDP metadata (relevant for the data and interaction model) and
> LDP content (opaque for the LDP protocol, but may contain anything
> including LDP data). in XML, this can easily be done by defining a schema
> and saying which parts matter for the data and interaction model, and
> which parts are opaque payload (often then simply using wildcards for
> those parts of the schema). i am wondering whether there are established
> RDF design pattern to tackle this problem; i cannot really imagine that
> we're the first ones having to deal with it.

TimBL and I had a discussion a few days ago about that.

Let's say that you're dereferencing the fragment-less URL X, and that
you get back a header like this:

[[
Link: <target>; rel=Y
]]

Then we could say that this is like having the triple

[[
<> <http://w3.org/TO/BE/DETERMINED/Y> <target>
]]

This would be enough for us for linking WebACL-s resources (rel=acl)
from <> at the protocol level, without messing with the actual
data. LDP could have its own set of reserved URLs for its protocol.

Note that you can't have meta informations for hash-URIs this way. But
this is actually ok -- and even a good thing -- as you want to state
things about the resource document itself, not its content.

Alexandre.

>
> thanks and cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 12 January 2013 17:44:00 UTC