Re: An IRC discussion with Alexandre Bertails re SSUE-19:

>> So I guess I disagree with Alexandre, who seems to think we can not succeed without a new media type.
>> The way I see it, this group is actually *augmenting* the meaning of the Turtle media type (and probably other RDF media-types), by providing it with interaction semantics, captured by the LDP vocabulary.
>> 
>> More precisely, to answer Alexandre's questions: 
>> > * how do I know that <foo> is an LDPR?
>> 
>> Well, any resource that yields a Turtle representation becomes de facto an LDPR (even if read-only).
> 

I think so too.

Then, if client discovers an linked LDPC, then this is the clue that it is a writable resource. 

> Perhaps. Not sure. That seems to be too miniamlistic an interpretation of an LDPR.

> 
>>  
>> > * how do I know that <foo> is neither an LDPC nor an LDPR?
>> 
>> See above: if it yields Turtle, it *is* and LDPR.
>> (granted, it would be useful to be able to tell the difference btw a read-only and a PUTable LDPR, though)
>>  
>> > * how do I know that I can interact with <foo> using the SPARQL Graph Protocol?
>> 
>> Is that in our scope? If so, I guess we should have a class or a property to state that about a given resource.
>>  
>> > * if I find out that <foo> a ldp:Container while looking at <bar>,
>> >  should I consider this information as authoritative?
>> 
>> Well, when you find the following HTML
>> 
>>   <form action="foo" method="foo">
>> 
>> at <bar>, do you believe it? Do you try and perform a POST on <foo>?
>> I guess the answer is the same: if you trust the source, then yes, you're allowed to start interacting with <bar> as if it were an LDPC.


When a form is submitted, the processor (indicated by the 'action' parameter) is doing something pretty similar to a LDPC. I suppose the HTML equivalent of issue-73, would be "list all of requests that have been processed". For me, this isn't very interesting because the information I need is in the documents I am browsing.  

Roger