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

Re: How to find the members of an LDPC?

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:45:40 +0100
Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <13F70257-1470-4B20-B4CC-87F38EFEF6B6@bblfish.net>
To: "Kingsley (Uyi) Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

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

<> 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 }
       WHERE { 
           <> foaf:primaryTopic ?t

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....


[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
Received on Friday, 8 November 2013 16:46:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:46 UTC