Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92

On 1/17/14 2:24 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <ericw3c@gmail.com> wrote on 01/17/2014 10:45:25 AM:
>
> > Apart from how we would best model types vs. interaction models, we
> > are good netizens who use HTTP headers as the are intended, and
> > rel=profile is intended to communicate the interaction model.
>
> The fundamental question is (again) whether we agree that the 
> interaction model isn't tied to the RDF data type and whether 
> Alexandre's use case - allowing one to have a container that doesn't 
> behave like an LDPC but a mere LDPR - is legit and should be supported.
>
> If we don't agree with that - and Henry apparently doesn't - 
> discussing how it should be supported is rather moot. 

Eric and Arnaud,

I just had a brief discussion with Ted (cc'd in on this mail) about this 
matter, and something I overlooked in my earlier exchange with Eric came 
to light: basically, I don't see problem with purpose specific relations 
i.e., one relation sets rdf:type for the resource and another expresses 
its interaction profile. Thus, I agree with the notion that the rdf:type 
of a resource doesn't have to be the only way to determine its 
interaction model -- in fact, this is more flexible bearing in mind the 
implementation audience.

-- 

Regards,

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