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: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:17:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CACfEFw-A46UVgE=mZGPCVxTTmtJfgdBQKKE1_GhxdV_MVWyvRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Cc: public-ldp@w3.org
https://gist.github.com/westurner/5704379 is returning
"Whoops: We seem to have missed the gist of that gist you were looking".

I searched stackoverflow for similar problems and emailed github
regarding this error.

Instead, I have added a revised Turtle .ttl file and some notes
to a github git repository with hg-git
regarding the subject matter of ISSUE-19 to
https://github.com/westurner/ldpnotes .
--
Wes Turner


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> you can only have one of these two ;-)
>
> :0)
>
> I think that it seems more difficult to do in RDF/XML than in Turtle.
>
> As an exercise, I created a (very rough) Turtle approximation of the
> HTTP Problem JSON:
>
> https://gist.github.com/westurner/5704379
>
> It may or may not be useful here.
>
> This also looked helpful:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3669407/convert-xsd-to-rdf-schema
>
> --
> Wes Turner
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> hello wes.
>>
>>
>> On 2013-06-03 15:10 , Wes Turner wrote:
>>>
>>> application/api-problem+turtle may be a good solution.
>>> text/turtle is the mimetype for Turtle RDF Syntax.
>>
>>
>> you can only have one of these two ;-) my proposal was based on the
>> convention of most web standards nowadays to mint media types. the second
>> one is based on the point kingsley made that in RDF, this often is pushed
>> into the generic RDF media types.
>>
>> if you want to go this route (regardless of the media type), then you'll
>> have to come up with a mapping of the currently JSON-based model into
>> RDF-land. currently, JSON is the canonical model, and the XML syntax is
>> derived from it. notice that this took a bit of negotiating, because JSON is
>> more permissive than XML in its name syntax, so we restricted the names in
>> potential extensions so that they don't cause trouble in the XML syntax.
>> it's currently just a "should" in
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-problem-04#section-4, but
>> at least we have made an effort and documented the reason.
>>
>> my guess is that mapping the problem model into RDF also requires a little
>> bit of tweaking to accommodate for its roots in JSON, and to make the
>> extension model reasonable. i am not 100% sure how to best do this, but i am
>> pretty sure to get to good results it takes some handwork instead of just
>> mechanically mapping JSON structures.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> dret.
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 12:18:29 UTC

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