- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:45:40 +0100
- To: "Kingsley (Uyi) Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 8 Nov 2013, at 17:16, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 11/8/13 10:53 AM, Alexandre Bertails wrote: >> I would even argue that it should be defined outside of LDP core, >> probably in a different spec that builds on top of LDP, as people >> expect LDP to just define a simple protocol. That's basically the >> approach taken by the people working on WebID and WebACL: there is no >> circular dependency with LDP. >> >> Alexandre. > +1 I think we need to think about this more carefully. If something like what I proposed in "volunteering for the army" [1] is going to be possible at some point in the future, then the basis for this needs to be settled now. For otherwise we may end up with a lot of clients that go POST things everywhere without looking at the consequences of their POSTing action. And then it will be impossible to add this feature later. So we need the current clients to allready understand some relation such as ldp:contractualBinding ( other possible names would be ldp:bind, ldp:postConsequence, ... ) so that when a client sees an LDPC with such a relation it will know NOT to post if it does not understand the meaning of it. The advantage of this is that one can start with something like the current proposal <> a ldp:Container; ldp:contractualBinding [ ldp:subject <../card#me>; ldp:predicate foaf:knows; ldp:rangeSelector foaf:primaryTopic ] . and the blank node can then later be filled in by much more advanced languages that future standards will want to develop. Perhaps something in the future that will look like this <> a ldp:Container; ldp:contractualBinding """ CONSTRUCT { <../card#me> foaf:knows ?t } FROM CREATED WHERE { <> foaf:primaryTopic ?t }"""^^future:language I am not saying this needs to be developed now. But if clients built now know not to POST into a container where they don't understand the contractual obligation, then this would be future proof. I suppose the other solution would be in the future to create an ldp:ContractualContainer that is a superclass of ldp:Container . Just a thought.... Henry [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0022.html > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Friday, 8 November 2013 16:46:12 UTC