- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:54:08 -0800
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, LDP <public-ldp@w3.org>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
hello kingsley. On 2012-12-17 10:13 , Kingsley Idehen wrote: > I believe LDP is based on the following: > 1. RDF data model -- an entity relationship data model endowed with > explicit machine and human comprehensible semantics > 2. Linked Data -- structured data based on the RDF model > 3. HTTP -- data access protocol that's decoupled from data > representation formats > 4. RDF data formats -- Turtle (MUST) and others (MAYBE). > If the above is true, why do you keep on recycling the same debate > topics in different guises? i am simply trying to keep us from making avoidable mistakes. HTTP is not a data access protocol. if it were, we would just use FTP. the "H" is there for a reason: HTTP clients are supposed to navigate through an interlinked set of resources, which make their interaction capabilities discoverable through HTTP's uniform interface. as soon as we start treating HTTP as data access, and address issues in RDF that should be addressed on the HTTP layer, we make ourselves incompatible with those 99% of today's web who don't speak RDF. if we "hide" issues necessary for interaction in RDF instead of exposing it in HTTP concepts, we make ourselves invisible to the majority of users that we see as possible adopters of LDP. afaict, we would treat short-term convenience of not trying to be good HTTP citizens, for the long term disadvantage that we would be just another well-behaving web service (see mark baker's earlier comments about "shouldn't we try to be friendly to anybody speaking HTTP?", and of course we should). cheers, dret.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 22:54:45 UTC