- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:37:21 -0500
- To: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
hello henry. On 2013-01-31 19:18 , "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >ldp-ISSUE-48 (profiles): Profile mechanism is Needed [Linked Data >Platform core] >It has been argued again and again by Erik Wilde on the mailing list [1] >that LDP needs a way to be able to specify what types of triples must >appear in a graph for a specific resource. Others have argued that one >needs this to specify what type of entity should be POSTed to a server. >The notion of profiles has come up as name for specifying this [2]. this is confusing two issues. one issue is that resources that are POSTed must be self-describing, so that for example a LDP service can understand the difference between a container being POSTed and a member being POSTed. for this, it is sufficient if the protocol specifies preconditions that have to be satisfied by the POSTed RDF, and then the service can dispatch after validation based on what it found in the POSTed resource. for this, no profiles are required, all we need is to make the representations self-describing. the other issue that it would be good if LDP had a presence in the uniform interface of the web, so that it can be advertised and detected in scenarios where discovery and dispatch is based on media types. it is unlikely that LDP will define its own media type. it could be argued that LDP could still be made visible by using profile media type parameters, but even that would require that the various RDF syntaxes that might be used to expose LDP all start supporting a profile parameter. this might also be a tough sell to the larger RDF community. if we use generic RDF media types, LDP will be invisible on the media type level. cheers, dret.
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 18:41:57 UTC