Re: how to know that something was DELETEd

On 3/27/13 4:27 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello kingsley.
>
> On 2013-03-27 13:02 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> On 3/27/13 2:52 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
>>> in this particular case, i would expect the content to be provenance
>>> statements in RDF, and a client POSTing such a resource would use the
>>> PROV-DM vocabulary, for example informing the pingback container that it
>>> just used something
>>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-dm-20130312/#term-Usage).
>> Assuming I am accurately processing the statement above. Here's a
>> "Devil's advocate" style question:
>> Why are vocabularies (without any detailed mime types and hypermedia
>> interaction model docs) acceptable in this RDF model based usecase
>> scenario?
> because we're a platform and don't really tell others how to design their
> scenarios.

A "scenario" is close to a "context" which is also close to a "situation" .

You are inferring that an LDP honors the above when associated with an 
RDF payload, right?

> we just build interactions for LDP, and that includes
> interaction affordances with what unfortunately so far has been called
> "binary resources", even though it just refers to any kind of payload (as
> opposed tp LDP stuff we care about). if they POST PROV data as
> text/turtle, that's fine.

Okay, but why is the "scenario" any different for any other RDF payload 
since RDF is driven by vocabularies? Basically, as Henry articulated 
earlier on: it's all about relations and their semantics -- the 
semantics in question are delivered by vocabularies.


>   if they POST it as text/prov+turtle, that's
> fine, too. as long as the LPD server accepts these media types, it simply
> accepts the data as content, and echoes it when a GET request is received.
> from the LDP point of view, it's no different from somebody doing things
> with image/jpeg.

Fine re. all the media types you mentioned (including text/turtle). I am 
just unclear about the special treatment (or clarity) that applies to 
PROV data. Remember, every statement in an RDF graph is a claim (or 
proposition). Provenance data, metadata, or any other kind RDF model 
based data is just a graph based (or structured) collection of propositions.

>
> i think this was very nicely echoed in james comments regarding
> callimachus: they just decided to treat POSTed RDF a little different than
> POSTed JPEGs by storing it in a named graph (to maybe run queries on that
> graph, i suppose, or maybe support other services they may provide), but
> in the end this simply means they store this resource as it is, so that
> they can return it as it was POSTed.

Yes, but how is that inconsistent with anything Henry, myself, or anyone 
else has been trying to articulate re., RDF content handling?

>   if they hadn't any requirements for
> additional services for RDF resources, they could also just store it as
> CLOB/BLOB.

Yes they could, but it doesn't help me understand your fundamental 
concerns with the points made by Henry or myself in the past re. RDF 
model semantics and LDP.

If PROV Data isn't problematic to your world view then nothing else 
should be re., RDF which is always driven by a vocabulary (that defines 
entity types and relation semantics). The treatment you espoused for 
PROV Data applies safely to all RDF based data since there's always a 
vocabulary in play.

The beauty of RDF is that every aspect is defined in RDF. Thus, you 
always have the ability to discern the basic meaning of: Statements 
(claims/propositions), Subjects, Predicates, and Objects.  If its RDF 
then you always have the ability to make the most basic inference about 
a Statement and its components.

The TBox (entity type definitions), RBox (entity relations/associations 
semantics definitions), and the ABox (instances of entity relations) are 
just different types of claims/propositions.

URIs serve as denotation mechanisms in each of the boxes above. These 
URIs (according to the existing text/turtle media type definition which 
mentions URIs and deference)  resolve to their meaning/sense (which is 
basically mathematics since the underlying conceptual schema is 
First-order logic) .

*I still have no aversion to over emphasizing Linked Data nuances in the 
text/turtle media type definition*

As the saying goes "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" . 
PROV Data is the same kind of RDF that Henry, Richard, Andy, myself and 
others are talking about with regards to  RDF and the role of vocabularies.

We can keep this whole thing dead simple by accepting the fact that 
media type text/turtle is hypermedia. It is also a sufficient vehicle 
for vocabulary driven HyperRDF.

RDF isn't the same as XML or JSON. Neither of those languages are 
implicitly bound to Data Model that's endowed with the semantic fidelity 
of RDF.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen