W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Interaction model vs data model

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:42:50 -0500
Message-ID: <5102A7FA.9080208@openlinksw.com>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 1/25/13 10:23 AM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello kingsley.
> On 2013-01-24 19:18 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> Bearing in mind your characterization of Content-Type as a protocol.
>> What are the Content-Types supported by LDP? Hopefully, we can
>> triangulate a route to clarity along this axis. Note, Linked Data
>> doesn't need its own Content-Type since it covers RDF model based data
>> representation and RESTful data access.
> linked data is just data and therefore can perfectly well use regular RDF
> media types.

I am referring to Linked Data as per TimBL's meme. I know "linked data" 
is a very generic phrase.

I am assuming that LDP (as I've stated repeatedly) is about:

1. Linked Data -- as per TimBL's meme
2. RDF -- which is integral to TimBL's meme.

Basically, that LDP is about RDF based Linked Data.

We can all save ourselves a lot of time if we have clear agreement about 
the above.

> after all, it's basically just RDF with additional
> constraints.

Its an application of RDF that addresses:

1. Data Representation
2. Data Access.

> however, since LDP is not just a data model but a protocol,
> it should have a media type that indicates that conversations are adhering
> to the constraints of the protocol, and that servers could for example
> advertise their support of this particular protocol.

What would that media type be?

Should TimBL's meme be converted into a formal Content-type submission? 
Maybe, at least it moves from a meme to something more formal.

> however, pragmatically speaking, it's fairly unlikely that LDP's
> capabilities will actually be exposed as a media type. realistically
> speaking, the best possible outcome i can see would be for LDP to define a
> profile URI (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-profile-link), and
> then to expose and use that profile URI for exposing through HTTP what a
> server is capable of doing. ideally, this should even be exposed as a
> media type parameter
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-profile-link-04#section-3.1), but
> since no RDF media type currently supports a profile media type parameter,
> this would require re-registration of the media types and thus might be
> out of reach as something we can achieve within the LDP effort.

Something has to be done.  Your suggestion above could be the way 
forward. I think its something that this effort ultimately requires.

> cheers,
> dret.



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 15:43:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:36 UTC