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

On 11 Jun 2013, at 21:42, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> 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: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel=profile

which would be the equivalent semantically to 

 <> ldp:profile <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource> 


> 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 .

ie: 

  Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; 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
http://bblfish.net/