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

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

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:59:01 -0700
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAF2DAB4D.FC626FF4-ON88257B87.0071CF33-88257B87.0073441C@us.ibm.com>
Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 06/11/2013 01:06:46 PM:

> What does the "server" have to do with this? LDP describes resources
> ( LDPRs ) not servers.

See, it is interesting to see how what one assumes to be a well 
established basis turns out not to be so. It goes right to my point about 
the time that gets wasted on discussing details when sometimes the 
misunderstanding is at a completely different level.

The  "Conformance" section of the LDP spec (section 3) currently defines 
what "A conforming LDP Server" is and what "A conforming LDP Client" are. 
So, if you don't think LDP describes servers we have a problem right there 
and we may as well not try and discuss anything further until we clarify 
that very point.

Best regards,
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group



> 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/
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 21:00:19 UTC

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