Re: proposal on ldp:profile ( Issue-48 ) -- was: Discovery/Affordances (Issue-32/Issue-57)

Hi Henry, 

Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 06/10/2013 11:57:22 PM:

> >> 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.
> 
> I think the problems in our discussions comes from this way of 
> phrasing things, 
> as it confuses two seperate topics:
> 
>   a) how do you know a resource is an LDPC/LDPR ? ("that it is 
> supporting LDP")
>   b) how do you constrain what types of resources can be member of an 
LDPC .
> 
> The profile is doing the second thing (b)
> ...

I don't understand why you pick that particular constraint and decide that 
this is what the LDP profile would be about.

This is especially confusing because there is no such constraint that I 
know of in LDP today. Any type of resource can be a member of an LDPC.

And this is not at all the what I'm hearing people say about why they want 
something to identify LDP resources beyond RDF.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group