- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 06:52:00 +0200
- To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 3 Jun 2013, at 06:35, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > [ Hi John, it would help if in the snippets of conversation you keepthe names > > of those who were speaking. like I do below: ] > > We each do what our mail client enables us to do with relative ease. Given the volume of emails, little other practical choice. My email client is my employer's choice. In a perfect world, the replies would be linked to the reflector URL. World is imperfect. I have never heard of an e-mail client that did not make it easy to add the headers "On $date, at $time, $author wrote:" and do indentation. Emacs could do that 30 years ago. > > > This mean you may have to parse the whole graph to get to know how > > > to deduce the ldp:includes relation I postit in ISSUE-79 > > I meant ldp:contains sorry. > > OK. Not something to be done without consideration, agree; I am familiar with the special requirements of streaming implementations from XML Schema discussions when a WG I used to chair was extending XSD. I will note however, having read much of the JSON-LD LC draft on the plane out to SemTechBiz, that you may have to parse an entire JSON-LD graph representation in order to find the @context information. So in the RDF space there is some precedent in the making here, and perhaps others already in existence. Not a reason to pile on willy-nilly, either. JSON-LD is not a finished standard, so that could well be something that is up for discussion there. Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 04:52:31 UTC