- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:31:02 -0700
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF209D533C.4F130206-ON88257B89.00526E89-88257B89.00553D07@us.ibm.com>
The header looks like this: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/profile>; rel=profile As I said, all it means is that if a response you get from a server contains such a link header you can expect the server to be LDP compliant. What I mean by that is that the interaction model defined in the LDP spec applies. I expect you to think this is redundant because it indicates an interaction model that you see as inseparable from the types of resources being used. Meaning that if a resource is typed as an LDP resource you can simply infer that the interaction model defined in the spec applies.* Others have clearly expressed that they view this differently and want something else than the resource type to indicate the interaction model. This gives them that. * Important Note: As I indicated before the spec doesn't currently require LDPRs to be typed with something like ldp:Resource. So I think you're missing something if you only want to rely on the RDF content. You wouldn't be able to tell that you're looking at an LDPR. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 06/13/2013 07:35:40 AM: > From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, > Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org > Date: 06/13/2013 07:46 AM > Subject: Re: Discovery/Affordances (Issue-32/Issue-57) > > On 13 Jun 2013, at 16:20, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 06/11/2013 11:36:04 PM: > > > > Ok, so I have spent a day trying to understand what it is that Erik > > Wilde is proposing, and I can > > get nowhere with it. So please can he propose something that is > > coherent and clearly written out > > so that we can have some ability to understand what he wants? > > > > Henry > > Hi Henry, > > Are you referring to the proposal to use a profile? I'm the one > who's made the proposal and I explained both why I made it and what it is. > Let's hope we can use next week's F2F to more effictively > communicate and come to an understanding if not an agreement. > > Ah ok. > > Can you show us the full Link header that you would propose be > used by the Server to show what it is you think needs saying. > This Link header will contain a relation and a value. > What is the value, and what is the relation meant to mean? > > Then it will be easier to see if one can agree to that, and what > the consequences of this is meant to be. > > Henry > > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 15:33:09 UTC