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

On 6/11/13 1:29 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 18:56, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com 
> <mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
>> Henry,
>>
>> I understand what the example you cited is about. I just don't 
>> understand what this has to do with the problem we are trying to 
>> solve. I don't believe this example represents the only possible use 
>> of profiles. 
>
>
> I this e-mail here 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jun/0084.html
> I asked "what is the profile adding?"
> You then answered that you don't really know what it is, but that Erik 
> Wilde would know.
> Then he directly quoted RFC6906
>
>>
>> The question isn't "oh, we've got a tool called profiles, what could 
>> we do with them?" and then imagine what we might do with them.
>
> Why do you say I imagine a use? I clearly don't: I used the example in 
> the spec Erik Wilde pointed
> us to when I asked for clarification on what profiles are.
>
>
>> The question is: "how can one find out the LDP interaction model is 
>> applicable from the HTTP layer, without creating a new mediatype". I 
>> believe one possible answer is to use an LDP profile.
>
> So perhaps you can go back to my example, and tell me why it does
> not do that. 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jun/0090.html
>
> What is the interaction model issue you want to make explicit?
>
>>
>> Given Erik's response to my earlier message I have no reasons to 
>> believe he has a problem with the way I propose to use profiles. If 
>> that's not the case I'm sure he will let us know.
>
> The only thing we have to go on about his idea of use of profiles is 
> his RFC6906.
> When we then use that, you tell us we should not. Is this just a blank 
> check for
> Erik Wilde to put anything in here, even if nobody understands, or can 
> we perhaps build
> something here?
>
>>
>> The problem we are discussing is primarily a matter of nailing down 
>> how one finds out whether the LDP interaction model is applicable.
>> This is orthogonal to what you're talking about. I know that from 
>> your point of view the interaction model is tied to the LDP 
>> vocabulary but we've heard loud and clear that others don't want to 
>> do that. So I'm looking for a compromise where both groups can use 
>> LDP the way they want.
>
> My example showed how one can explain one interaction model: how one 
> can let
> the client know that he should only POST certain types of documents to 
> an LDPC.
>
>> I've put forward a very simple proposal. Please, just take it for 
>> what it is.
>>
>> If you could only accept that this marker is harmless to what you 
>> want to do - as I said you can ignore it if you want - and people 
>> like Alexandre think it solves their problem we could be done with 
>> this and move on.
>
> If I don't know what they want to do, how can I know if it is harmless?
>
> I thought I knew what they wanted to do, and I tried to make that explicit
> here:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jun/0090.html
>
> What was wrong with that?
>
> Also this has nothing to do with headers or not. If you can put it in 
> the body, you
> can always also put it in a Link Header.

+1

Kingsley
>
>
> Henry
>
>>
>> Regards.
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
>>
>>
>> Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net 
>> <mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net>> wrote on 06/11/2013 08:41:18 AM:
>>
>> > From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net 
>> <mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net>>
>> > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS,
>> > Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-ldp-wg@w3.org>" 
>> <public-ldp-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-ldp-wg@w3.org>>
>> > Date: 06/11/2013 08:47 AM
>> > Subject: Re: proposal on ldp:profile ( Issue-48 ) -- was: Discovery/
>> > Affordances (Issue-32/Issue-57)
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:20, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com 
>> <mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Henry,
>> > >
>> > > Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net 
>> <mailto: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 
>> ofan 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.
>> >
>> > Do you mean constraint (b) ?
>> > I explained that in the paragraph that followed right after the
>> > piece of my e-mail that you cut.
>> >
>> > I cite RFC6906 entitled "The 'profile' Link Relation Type" which is
>> > written by a certain
>> > E. Wilde of EMC Corporation, which our Erik Wilde linked to in the
>> > mail I was responding to
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906
>> > The end of the introduction has the following text
>> >
>> > [[
>> >    As one example, consider the case of podcasts, where a specific kind
>> >    of feed uses additional fields for media-related metadata.  Using a
>> >    'profile' link, it would be easily possible for clients to 
>> understand
>> >    that a specific feed is supposed to be a podcast feed, and that it
>> >    may contain entries using podcast-specific fields.  This may allow a
>> >    client to behave differently when handling such a feed (such as
>> >    rendering a podcast-specific UI), even when the current set of
>> >    entries in the feed may not contain any podcast entries.  (
>> >    Section 5.3 gives more details for this example.)
>> > ]]
>> >
>> > this passage was also cited by Kingsley Idehen in the thread
>> > "Discovery/Affordances (Issue-32/Issue-57)"
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jun/0085.html
>> >
>> > If you read this carefully it is clear that the aim of this profile
>> > is to constrain the type of elements that appear in a podcast feed.
>> >
>> > I have often heard Erik Wilde ask for such constraints. They can
>> > be useful in that you may want a LDPC to be a place people POST
>> > specific types of RDF graphs, eg:
>> >
>> >   - card addition events
>> >   - shopping orders
>> >   - bug report additions
>> >   - etc....
>> >
>> > Furthermore it is not the first time that Erik Wilde makes this
>> > request. In Issue-48 I point to a few places where he voiced
>> > this request. I happen to think it is not a bad idea.
>> > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/48
>> >
>> > Does this help, or have I missed something?
>> >
>> > Henry
>> >
>> > Social Web Architect
>> > http://bblfish.net/
>> >
>> >
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen