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

Henry Story <> wrote on 06/11/2013 03:02:43 PM:

> I really don't think one can just not answer the following question:


I honestly don't know how to respond to you because your premise is wrong.

I proposed to have an LDP profile Link header and that "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."

I don't know how you go from there and decide that:

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

I take it that this is what you think I want but it's not.

I really think we should avoid second guessing what others want and at 
least validate assumptions we make about others wishes before engaging in 
further discussion. Failing to do so can only lead to frustration on all 

For what it's worth, there is no such thing as ldp:Resource in the spec.

Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

> 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 .
> ie: 
>   Link: <>; rel=type
> What is the difference?
> Social Web Architect

Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 00:11:05 UTC