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

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

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:44:37 +0200
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9CF58691-051A-4109-8F84-AA09D6DB7B0B@bblfish.net>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>

On 11 Jun 2013, at 22:59, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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. 

[[
A conforming LDP Server is an application program that processes HTTP requests and generates HTTP responses that conform to the rules defined in sections on LDPRs and LDPCs
]]

Ok. thanks for pointing this out. 

Still that does not really put the following into question:

> 
> > 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. 

The HTTP header describes the resource. I tend to think of the headers
as what the Server tells us. In that sense if the Link header
appears in the Header, then one can think of it sas the server telling
us that the resource is an LDPR. And then if the server says so, well
it makes more sense to judge it as to how it implements LDP.

> > 
> > 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 21:45:09 UTC

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