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

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 02:11 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> RDF was not designed with HTTP interactions in mind. If I see
>>> "Content-type: text/turtle", I know that I should look at [1] to know
>>> about the interactions it allows, but this one does not say anything
>>> about LDP.
>>
>>
>> Nor should it, except insofar as an LDP vocabulary can be used within
>> the Turtle.
>
>
> My question was simple and yet you didn't answered it: what is the
> general mechanism that tells me how to go from "this is text/turtle"
> to "I can interact with it as defined in the LDP spec".

That's the question I answered. I suppose it depends what you mean by
"interact"; I assume because you were unsatisfied with my response,
that you have far more in mind than I do about how to interact with
the LDP specification.

RDF itself points you to the LDP spec via the namespace for whatever
LDP term happens to be mentioned in the turtle. But all that tells you
is the definition of the term. If you're looking for anything else,
such as conformance criteria, then you're right, there's no way to
follow your nose from the turtle, there. But it's also not-RESTful to
do so, and a bad practice for all Web development, as it makes
messages non-self-descriptive and introduces a high degree of
client/server coupling.

For example, if some turtle said;

<foo> :a ldp:Container .

and ldp:Container definition said "If you DELETE this resource then it
shall forever return 404 or 410 and not 2xx", then you'd have LDP
clients coupled to that implementation detail about how LDP servers
are supposed to behave, rather than just to the interface (DELETE as
defined in RFC 2616).

So hopefully that explains why I considered my previous answer be be
an answer :)

Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 21:18:23 UTC