- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:00:56 -0700
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF9E502A7C.CEE6D498-ON88257B88.00757BA3-88257B89.00527B75@us.ibm.com>
Hi Andy, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote on 06/12/2013 02:11:31 AM: > ... my message was originally in response to the > complexity seemingly arising. Is plain-simple HTTP valid interaction? I think it really depends on what you mean by that. The spec defines a series of requirements that must be met, even if we were to define a minimal level of conformance for read-only LDPR-only implementations. Do all these happen to be part of what you call "plain-simple HTTP valid interaction"? > > That said, I wil suggest that either having a level of conformance > for LDPR-only servers or a explicitly understood reason why such a > thing isn't helpful would be good. > > The lower the barrier to being a compliant LDP server, the more > widespread they (and clients) will be and the more data that can be > integrated. > > Clearly, there is a tension between being so minimal as to be > useless, or so minimal that an application has to add a lot of app- > specific functionality; this risks going round the loop on range of > applications in scope of the WG. > > Is a simple key-value store where the key is a URI and the value > being graph data an LDP server? How much more would it take to be one? I think I understand what you're trying to get to but this is too vague of a question to be answered in general. > > Andy -- Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 15:03:17 UTC