- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:04:33 +0100
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Cc: public-ldp@w3.org, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Hi all, On 16 Nov 2012, at 19:57, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: > However, as I show in my ESWC LAPIS2012 presentation, see > http://folk.uio.no/kjekje/2012/lapis2012.xhtml > RDF can be made to be a very powerful hypermedia type by fairly trivial > means. In fact, it can easily meet all but one of Amundsen's criteria (I > just realised that LE can be met using data URIs). > > I've been talking with people F2F on ISWC about this, and I hope I have > convinced some that this is the direction one should be going. And I really > don't think this is out of the scope of the charter, to the contrary, if > this is done right, it is what the charter really means. :-) As one of the people who discussed this with Kjetil, I think it *really* makes sense to try so see things from this perspective. Just like Mark said, I believe we’re too much in the process of making a protocol at HTTP level, while LDP is the chance to do something different. So the crucial question is: is it still possible to go in a fundamentally different discussion than the one we’re going in right now (even if it’s just trying)? At the moment, this seems hard, since a lot of the spec is already there. But this alone should not be a justification to continue the way we’re going. Best, Ruben
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2012 15:05:49 UTC