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

Re: LDP Minutes of June 3 - straw-poll ?

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 22:36:46 +0200
Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com>, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14622E59-88F4-4670-8C33-E8936E09BBD9@bblfish.net>
To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Just answering both Erik And Roger in one go.

On 4 Jun 2013, at 21:07, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:

> On 2013-06-04 11:58 , "Roger Menday" <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> My characterisation:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Managing Documents (about Things) in Boxes
>>>>>>> 2. Use Boxes to help managing Things (which might be inside
>>>>>>> Documents)
>>> [...]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That why I say that Boxes are just a means to an end (rather than
>>>>>> the end themselves). Boxes just contain the membershipTriples.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Boxes are LDPCs if I understand. The membershipXX are really attempts
>>>>> to declare certain things.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The use case people are trying to solve with the propertyXX
>>>>>>> relations I think needs to
>>>>>>> be worked out and described carefully. The the idea would be to
>>>>>>> find some patterns
>>>>>>> that allow you to  satisfy the use case of adding  relations in
>>>>>>> connected LDPRs when creating an LDPR.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I believe that no.2 is where more applications are.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Since you can do everyting with 1, you can't claim there are more
>>>>>>> applications in 2.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's true. 
>>>>>> So one can do everything with both models :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was saying you can do everything with 1. What is up with 2
>>>>> I don't know. It is really not clear.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Which one is the mainstream developer going to be happier with ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Something that works. I am sure 1 works. 2 is not clear at all.
>>>>> 1 is Atom semanticised: devs can leverage a lot of knowledge to
>>>>> understand that. 2 seems like OO thinking applied to the web, which
>>>>> seems like XMLRPC.
>>>> 
>>>> So, no.2 is interesting because I think it is the best basis for doing
>>>> hyperRDF, and that seems pretty far away from the accusations you are
>>>> making. Anyway, you can't say "don't understand no.2" and then toss
>>>> around "it's just XMLRPC" !! I am trying to understand why you want to
>>>> do semanticisedATOM btw ... :)
>>> 
>>> To explain how I come to "XMLRPC" : you speaks of manipulating "things"
>>> (aka objects) 
>>> remotely: that seems to  be an OO programming way of thinking of the
>>> matter. 
>>> OO has a problem of  not being able to distinguish between contexts -
>>> who 
>>> said what [1] - and it is the way of thinking developers have been the
>>> most 
>>> liable to fall into, and which has led to some of the biggest failures
>>> in 
>>> distributed systems.
>>> 
>>> The web in general and the semantic web in particular fall in the
>>> declarative
>>> way of programming ( eg: prolog,  reasoning systems, etc.... ) . There
>>> you 
>>> express what is the case, by making statements through what in
>>> linguistics
>>> is known as speech acts, for which the equivalent on the web are our
>>> HTTP
>>> verbs: GET, PUT, POST, DELETE... The importance of declarative systems
>>> is that they can be loosely coupled and they can scale.
>>> 
>>> In these declarative system it is not object that you manipulate but
>>> documents. Documents
>>> when interpreted describe restrictions on the set of ways the world can
>>> be. The
>>> semantic web makes it easy to merge RDF documents, which when done
>>> creates a new
>>> graph which creates restrictions that are the intersection of the
>>> possibilites 
>>> expressed by each document. So manipulating documents, you are
>>> manipulating 
>>> possibilites - not objects. In fact it is just the opposite of
>>> manipulating 
>>> objects.
>>> 
>>> Now the danger is that you can spend a lot of money in vain building
>>> systems
>>> that will crumble if you fail to make this distinction. The web is an
>>> global
>>> communication system, not an object interchange system - or at least
>>> the only 
>>> objects interchanged are representations of documents.
>> Thanks for your comments, Henry.

You're welcome Roger :-)

>> We (this group) have exchanged a lot of examples over the past 6 months,
>> in which Thing and Document has been mixed-up. I am very sure that if I
>> look back through the archives, I would even be able to find examples
>> where YOU are doing the same thing :)

Documents are things, but they are one of many many types of things.
They happen to be really important to the web and to our species.

>> So, I don't necessarily disagree with your point above, I just don't
>> think that it a good argument against approach no.2, because, I think
>> that no.2 is really doing very Webby things to make Linked Data
>> interactable (i.e. readable and writeable).
> 
> on a related note, just today the W3C published a FPWD of a "URLs in Data
> Primer" http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-urls-in-data-20130604/ ; essentially
> what it says is that instead of using the funky httpRange-14 dance, what
> you should do instead is at the model level clearly distinguish and expose
> different URIs to documents about things and things themselves, if it
> matters to what you're doing.

yes that's a nice find Erik. Thanks. 
Except that they should really have big warning signs
on 303s and tell people that it requires one more redirect and is so not the
favored method. The #URL method is the efficient way to do things, and the one
that is certainly correct. 303s are there to help cover erros. I'll leave them
a note on that.

Perhaps that will help Alexandre Bertails.

> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 20:37:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:51 UTC