Re: Interaction model vs data model

Erik,

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:

> hello kingsley.
>
> On 2013-01-24 17:59 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> >On 1/24/13 11:40 AM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> >> i am certainly using "link" in the REST sense: references that clients
> >>are expected to follow in their application flow, and where the behavior
> >>is defined by the protocol (the media type). if that may cause
> >>confusion, what about hyperlink, following the recent trend that one of
> >>the essences of REST is that it's hypermedia?
> >Is a Content-type (or media type) a protocol? Isn't that metadata for
> >the resource denoted by the link? Basically, the description of the data
> >de-referenced by the link.
>
> any content type that uses links (i.e., goes beyond simple image/gif kind
> of standalone data formats) essentially is a protocol: it defines rules
> how interactions between clients and servers are possible, and what they
> mean.
>

reading your answer above, as well as your answer to Andy's previous
question in this thread,
I think it would indeed be useful in this group to distinguish between
*links* (or RDF-links) that merely represent a relationship between two
entities, and *hyperlinks* (or REST-links) that describe potential
interactions.

Of course, one could argue that, according to the Follow Your Nose
heuristics in linked data, every RDF-link is an incentive to GET the URI it
links to, hence a hyperlink... In fact, from this point of view, any URI
identified as such is a hyperllnk... This over-generalization does not seem
very useful, though.

  pa


> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>
>