Re: how to know that something was DELETEd

On 27 Mar 2013, at 21:37, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:
> On 2013-03-27 13:55 , "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that the WG should take on the work of designing a
>> general purpose RDF-based feed/syndication mechanism. We have enough on
>> our plate.
> 
> i thought this was exactly what we had on our plate,

I don't think so. What we have on our plate is producing a W3C Recommendation for HTTP-based (RESTful) application integration patterns using read/write Linked Data.

> and PROV would be a
> good way of showing that we can actually do it. we want to expose
> containers (feeds) of resources (entries), and we want to expose linked
> data that allows clients to interact with these by reading, creating,
> updating, and deleting them. we had a lot of discussions around atom when
> we started,

Well, *you* had a lot of discussions around Atom...

> and i understand than some of the design decisions are
> different because of a different metamodel foundation. but i cannot
> remember anybody saying that what we wanted to do was fundamentally
> different. i am interested to hear where you think the fundamental
> differences are (apart from the RDF vs XML discussion).

Atom is about trees, LDP needs to be about graphs. Atom only has collections and members (a single relationship type), while LDP needs to be able to deal with arbitrary relationship types. Atom imposes its own model of collections, members, feeds and entries, while LDP has to work with existing domain-specific models (where some parts of these models *may* have the semantics of collections, entries, etc.). Atom is centered around the concept of an "Atom entry document" which forces a metadata schema designed for news syndication upon all users; LDP has to be agnostic regarding metadata schemas. Atom comes with terminological baggage from its roots in web content syndication; LDP already has to deal with the terminological baggage of both the RDF and the REST communities and the last thing needed is talk about Feeds and Entries.

> when i look at all of our user stories, these are stories which trivially
> map to feed architectures,

When all you have is a hammer…

Best,
Richard



> apart from the fact that we have the RDF
> requirements. and even if you don't want to call them feeds (because of
> the XML implication), i would be interested where you think that our task
> is to design something fundamentally different.
> 
> thanks and cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 22:33:15 UTC