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

On 11 Jun 2013, at 21:42, Arnaud Le Hors <> wrote:

> [snip]
> I already explained why I'm proposing to use a Link header with an LDP profile and discussed what this would entail. It is as simple as one can hope for. All it means is that if a response you get from a server contains a link to that profile you can expect the server to be LDP compliant. 

What does the "server" have to do with this? LDP describes resources ( LDPRs ) not servers. A server could
have just one LDPR in it or one LDPC with a few LDPRs, in a sea of HTML resources. When you get
HTTP headers on a HEAD, GET, etc... these are only valid for that resource, not for the entire web site.

So what you really want is a way to describe that an LDP Resource is an LDPR, or an LDPC an LDPC.

Now you want to do this with a header 

  Link: <>; rel=profile

which would be the equivalent semantically to 

 <> ldp:profile <> 

> Isn't that something you can live with? 

Is that what you want?  The proposal has not been made clear yet.

How is that such a great improvement over 

 <> a ldp:Resource .


  Link: <>; rel=type

What is the difference?

Or is it that the spec author for RFC6906 would like us just to 
mention his spec in our spec? 

Social Web Architect

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 20:07:21 UTC