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: 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>; 

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 

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 
> 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

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