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

Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-19: Adressing more error cases, as is

From: Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:10:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CACfEFw8vun=DBgj2hEaG9XsY6PKsH2D1X2dB6iN_pjSsQBwfDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Cc: public-ldp@w3.org
Great.

http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#conventions-used-in-this-document

application/api-problem+turtle may be a good solution.

text/turtle is the mimetype for Turtle RDF Syntax.

Here's an example of an OWL RDF ontology in Turtle:
http://schema.rdfs.org/all.ttl

I guess there would an `rdfs:Class` for Problem and attributes with
domains and ranges that could be links or Literals, with language tags
like @en.

There must be a way to create a
http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/ context for mapping to
triples.

The relevant parts of http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/ might be:

2012-09-19 - ISSUE-1 Define Turtle as the required serialization
format for LDP (SS)

4.2.2 LDPR servers must provide a text/turtle representation of the
requested LDPR [TURTLE].
4.2.3 LDPR servers may provide representations of the requested LDPR
beyond those necessary to conform to this specification, using
standard HTTP content negotiation. If the client does not indicate a
preference, text/turtle must be returned.

5.4.6 LDPC servers must accept a request entity body with a request
header of Content-Type with value of text/turtle [TURTLE].
5.4.7 LDPC servers should use the Content-Type request header to
determine the representation format when the request has an entity
body. When the header is absent, LDPC servers may infer the content
type by inspecting the entity body contents [HTTP11].


... An LDP application must return TURTLE, may return JSON, XML, blobs, HTML5


--
Wes Turner


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> 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 22:11:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:16:35 UTC