W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > June 2013

Re: LDP-Server - Issue-57

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:31:43 -0400
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CDE083E4.12FD2%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello arnaud.

On 2013-06-14 8:12 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>Do you think that we have here one of those differences that goes beyond
>> language? That we have here a notion so subtle that there remains no
>> way to tell the difference in language itself?
>I think the difference really lies into whether you see the interaction
>model and the RDF type as inseparable or not.

very well put. to spice things up a little (sorry arnaud :-)... no,
seriously, please don't respond to this (i promise i won't), but maybe use
it as a little thought experiment for yourself:

we theoretically should be able to "re-encode" LDP in JSON, saying clearly
which hypermedia affordances clients really need to know about, and then
we encode those in JSON. the payload of the JSON-guided interactions then
is RDF (because that's what we're shipping back and forth), but the
service is driven by LDP interactions that can be represented any way we

for RDF-minded clients, of course that would be inconvenient and thus we
very don't want this. it's pretty much always a bad idea to mix metamodels
in a service, it makes processing hard (you need two processing
machineries) and is more complex than serializing everything in the same

but as arnaud rightly pointed out: if somebody took off and said "i love
LDP, but i really want to build a JSON flavor of it", they should be able
to fairly easily extract the interaction model, represent it in a way that
makes JSON-LDP consumers happy, and then wrap that set of interactions
around the RDF that's being exchanged.

so, please *do not* respond ;-) but i think arnaud made an excellent
comment here, pointing out a very helpful separation of concerns (service
model vs. data model).


Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 15:32:38 UTC

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