Re: Issue-37: Ontological Modelling

hello henry.

On 2013-01-22 17:39 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>yes, you are speaking about Atom Entries, but this is not what we are
>doing,
>here.

i am speaking about an established model of how to handle collections and
entries, which seems to be simpler than what we're doing, and i am
wondering what we're getting for the additional complexity.

>Atom it seems to me is just an attempt to XMLify HTTP. Consider what your
>Atom entry is as simply: metadata about some content.
><entry>
>       <title>Atom-Powered Robots Run Amok</title>
>       <link href="http://example.org/2003/12/13/atom03"/>
>       <id>urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a</id>
>       <updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02Z</updated>
>       <summary>Some text.</summary>
></entry>
>Well why bother with all that?
>In HTTP we have it already: it's called headers and content,
>and the rest you can do  through hyperlinking.
>POST /2013/01/22/ HTTP/1.1
>Host: example.org
>Content-Type: text/turtle
>Slug: card
>Content-Length: 20
>
><#me> a <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person> .
>
>HTTP/1.1 201 Created
>Content-Length: 0
>Link: <card;acl>; rel=acl
>Location: atom03

i guess then what we're doing is the RDFification of HTTP, which i very
much hope we're not doing. Atom and LDP are supposed to have open metadata
models for their protocol data, associated content with the managed
entries, and protocol behavior that goes beyond HTTP methods. your example
excludes content, does not represent the metadata that has no immediate
mapping to HTTP headers, and contains no extensions. all of these are
essential and the value that drives both Atom, and LDP.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 17:00:37 UTC