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

On 5 Jun 2013, at 07:13, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:

> hello kingsley.
> 
> On 2013-06-04 15:17 , Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On the assumption that we both agree there is no such thing as
>> unstructured data:
>> HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) transfers Data.
>> RDF (Resource Description Framework)  enables you describe and
>> understand Data.
>> RDF based Linked Data enables you describe, understand, and refer to
>> Data by combining the items above.
> 
> now that sounds really great, but it really is a bit generic. would you mind spelling out for alexandre and me how a client that has no prior knowledge of LDP will, when it encounters text/turtle LDP resources, be able to figure out which links to follow with which interactions (GET/PUT/POST/PATCH), what to send as request payload, and what that is going to do in terms of LDP protocol semantics? thanks!

See my discussion with Alexandre Bertails in the other thread for a more
in depth discussion of this. Doing this by e-mail is very difficult, because
people here tend to cut up e-mails, only  respond partially to them, and
as you saw with the discussion with Alex, it can take a long time in such
a discussion to get to the conclusion. At least it looks like that in 
an e-mail thread.

Anyway I need to split up your question because it is problematic.

1. "that has no prior knowledge of LDP will"

sorry but if you interact with a client with no prior knowledge of ldp,
does not know the ldp ontology, etc... then it will not be able to know
that the resource is an ldp resource. It won't even have the concept.

2. "when it encounters text/turtle LDP resources"

   That is dangerously misleading shorthand for "an resource that returns a 
text/turtle representation describing the resource as being an LDP resource"

Ie, a  GET on the resrource should return a representation which, however
it was encoded (RDF/XML, Turtle, JSON with a special mime type, etc ) should 
be transformable to the graph

     { <> a ldp:Container } .

The above sentence is true if and only if the resource in question can 
be interacted with as explained by the LDP spec.

3. "What to send as request payload". 

 Currently there is no language to describe this. It is the work for a future
Working Group on RDF validation
  https://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/Overview.php
  That is: if you can express what a valid description to send to an 
LDP resource is then your question is answered.
  For the moment the easiest answer is: there is no standard way to describe
the restrictions of what to send in such a way that a client with no prior
knowledge of a domain would know what it means. 
  In practice you can create your own vocabulary to say things such as:

  { <> a ldp:BugReportContainer } 

4. "what that is going to do in terms of LDP protocol semantics"

Well the answer is given by the LDP spec, which I won't recapitualte.
If you are not satisfied with the spec, file a bug report.

Henry


> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 06:41:08 UTC