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

Re: LDP-Server - Issue-57

From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:48:45 +0100
CC: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8E00A029-CF8B-4FE5-90E5-C2937D136EF5@uk.fujitsu.com>
To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>

Erik, 

I would just configure my default serialisation as JSON-LD, and bob's your uncle. 

I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean/want, and anyway you requested for no responses :) 

Roger

> 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
> choose.
> 
> 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
> way.
> 
> 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).
> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 
> 



Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 16:49:33 UTC

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