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

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

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:20:57 -0700
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF3D675F59.30D9B9E8-ON88257B87.0051B2C2-88257B87.0054507D@us.ibm.com>
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 
> >> 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 
> 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
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 15:27:27 UTC

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