Re: Discovery/Affordances (Issue-32/Issue-57)

Hi Erik,

My understanding is that clients should not dereference the profile URI 
and we could do nothing more than defining its use in the spec by simply 
adding that LDP servers should advertise their LDPness by adding the LDP 
profile Link header.

In addition, for documentation purposes, we should have a short HTML 
document that explains what this profile is about, pointing to the RFC and 
the LDP spec so that if someone where to dereference the profile URI they 
would get some useful information, just like we do for namespaces.

Is there anything else?

What about versioning? Should we use something version specific like 
http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/profile-1.0? Do you have any recommendations?
Thanks.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group




From:   "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
To:     Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, Henry Story 
<henry.story@bblfish.net>, 
Cc:     "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Date:   06/10/2013 11:44 AM
Subject:        Re: Discovery/Affordances (Issue-32/Issue-57)



hello arnaud.

On 2013-06-10 11:22 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 06/10/2013 09:09:43 AM:
>> ...
>> So as argued above you can use the Link header and also use the
>> ldp:Container there in the same
>> way as you do with the body. What is the profile adding?  What
>> vocabulary would need to be used to
>> describe the profile?  Do we need this now or can we add it later?
>> Unless those questions are answered
>> this seems like a lot of work to do when we can just use
>> ldp:Container to mean: you can POST to this
>> container.
>I have to admit not to know what it takes to create a profile but I
>wonder why you think this is a lot of work. Maybe Erik can help us there?
>I see this is as a simple marker that doesn't require much anything else
>than be defined in the spec as a way the server can advertise it is
>supporting LDP.

that's exactly its intent. specifically, profile URIs are defined as being
*identifiers only*, meaning that there is no required/defined vocabulary
for defining/describing them. a community minting a profile or a set of
profiles might want to settle on such a vocabulary (using their metamodel
of choice, which in the LDP case probably would be RDF), but that's
optional and not required by the spec.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906#section-1: "The profile link relation
type is independent of the context in which it is used and does not
constrain, in any way, the target of the linked URI. In fact, for the
purpose of this specification, the target URI does not necessarily have to
identify a dereferencable resource (or even use a dereferencable URI
scheme). Clients can treat the occurrence of a specific URI in the same
way as an XML namespace URI and invoke specific behavior based on the
assumption that a specific profile target URI signals that a resource
representation follows a specific profile.  Note that, at the same time,
it is possible for profile target URIs to use dereferencable URIs and to
use a representation (which is outside the scope of this specification)
that represents the information about the profile in a human- or
machine-readable way."

cheers,

dret.