- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:06:40 -0400
- To: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
- CC: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 06/06/2013 09:26 AM, Roger Menday wrote: > >>> 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. For the same reasons, should I consider <foo> as a named graph as well, according to the SPARQL Graph Protocol? > > Then, if client discovers an linked LDPC, then this is the clue that it > is a writable resource. So I don't know that an LDPR is a writable resource until I find the LDPC telling me it actually is? > >> 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. The semantics of <form> is defined in HTML, which tells the web browser what to do with it. I don't have any problem with that. Alexandre. > > Roger > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 14:06:54 UTC