- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:31:55 -0500
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
hello henry. On 2013-01-25 09:44 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >Now is it even useful to notice this? Does it have any >protocol implications? Well I think it does. For example >it explains why ISSUE-45 [1] can give those things a >different operational behavior to ldp:Container-s >with regard to POST. It can do that because there is >no overlap between ldp:Container-s and _:X . i really like this exercise, but i just want to point out the difference between the data model and the interaction model again: for the data model part, looking at LDPR and LDPC makes a lot of sense. for the interaction model, we could/might choose other/additional resources/representations. for example, consider the simple product/order example i described yesterday (follow an "order" link of a product page to POST an order), where the data model would be products and orders (these would be the resources managed by the server). the protocol probably would use other resources, for example asking a client to submit just an address (which then translates to an order being created), or maybe even only a single number ("i want *42* of these things), and then the server creates an order out of that. so while the data model in that case would clearly only need products and orders, the interactions could very well use different representations, because the state that is transferred in the protocol is different from the "server-side data model". cheers, dret.
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 14:32:45 UTC