- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 12:31:58 -0700
- To: Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
- CC: public-ldp@w3.org
hello wes.
On 2013-06-03 12:09 , Wes Turner wrote:
> **re: "Problem Details for HTTP APIs"**
> There are defined JSON and XML representations of
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-problem-03 , which
> specifies a Problem Details JSON Object and a Problem Details XML
> Object.
new version just published today (no major changes):
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-problem-04
> In order for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-problem-03
> to be applicable to LDP, there must be a Turtle representation.
not really. problem reports have their own media types, so there would
be nothing wrong with just serving these types. but it might be more
convenient for clients to be able to consume their preferred metamodel,
so maybe having an RDF model would be nice.
which would get to the touchy issue of media types.
application/api-problem+json and application/api-problem+xml are the
current media types, would an RDF model follow what pattern and expose
application/api-problem+turtle?
cheers,
dret.
--
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
| UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
| http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 19:32:26 UTC