Re: LDP-Server - Issue-58

On 13 Jun 2013, at 17:20, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> Arnaud, Henry,
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> From my point of view, we're not just defining a vocabulary or ontology people can use with an existing triple store. We're also defining an interaction model in a the form of requirements that requires one to write code for in a server to be compliant. 
> 
> LDP isn't only about RDF. It is also about REST, which clearly involves servers and clients. We're not only defining specific states but also how to transition from one state to another.
> 
> I completely agree with Arnaud on that.
> However...
>  
> How do you do that without talking about servers? 
> 
> I think Henry's point is that LDP-compliance is not a property of the server as a whole...
> An HTTP server manages a number of resources (roughly, one per URI for which the server does not return 404);
> some of those resources might conform with the spec (either as LDPR or LDPC), but other may not (e.g. /favicon.ico).
> 
> The original text:
> 
> > [[
> > A conforming LDP Server is an application program that processes HTTP requests and generates HTTP responses
> > that conform to the rules defined in sections onLDPRs and LDPCs
> > ]]
> 
> may seem to imply that an LDP server manages *only* LDPRs : one might read it as "that processes any HTTP request", while the intention is, I guess, "that processes some HTTP requests"
> 
> Note that Henry's proposal does talk about the server:
> 
> > [[
> > A conforming LDP Server is an HTTP Server that contains one or more 
> > LDPC resources that conform
> > to the rules defined in this spec.
> > ]]
> 
> but aims at making it clearer that LDP-compliance may concern only a subset of the resources.

yes, thanks. That a nice summary :-)
> 
> Note that two details are bothering me in Henry's definition, though:
> 
> * I'm assuming he means LDPR rather than LDPC

I was not sure about LDPR vs LDPC, so I put down what I felt we were most sure about. But
yes, if LDPRs can be given a non vacuous meaning, then we should put it that way...   Currently
we don't have ldp:Resource in our ontology yet. :-)

> * I would prefer "Server that manages" than "Server that contains", but that's editorial, really

Ah yes, that sounds better.

> 
>   pa
>  

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/