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

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

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 20:04:00 +0200
Cc: public-ldp@w3.org, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Message-Id: <A28D4CB0-AA43-494D-8CF9-7F27D4D8BCBF@bblfish.net>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>

On 5 Jun 2013, at 18:52, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:

> hello henry.
> 
> On 2013-06-04 23:40 , Henry Story wrote:
>> Anyway I need to split up your question because it is problematic.
> 
> i don't see why it's problematic, it is the starting point for how you intent to build a functioning system. but anyhow...
> 
>> 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.
> 
> that's how things work in my world, so i am glad we agree on this. and my guess is that this is what alexandre was trying to understand as well. given that a client needs built-in understanding of LDP to be able to use it, the follow-up question then is how to expose this shared understanding of "we now how LDP works" on the service surface.

see further down.

> 
>> 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"
> 
> whatever makes you happy. it doesn't really matter here which RDF serialization we talk about, since they currently all function in the same way: on the media type level, there is no indication of the model, there only is an indication of the metamodel. i just picked text/turtle because that seems to be the preferred RDF serialization these days.

I don't know the terms model and metamode. I do know syntax. Text/turtle is a language identifier that tells you how
to interpret the syntax.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> - there is no WG on validation. there is an upcoming workshop which may or may not lead to a WG. if there will be a WG, it is unclear what its deliverables will be.

It's up to you or this group to give it impetus.

> 
> - if there will be a WG, it's job will be to work on validation, which is fairly different from "describing how RESTful interactions with a specific service work". the former can be a part of the latter, but doesn't have to be, and even if it is, it usually covers only a small fraction of the actual interaction semantics.
> 
> given that we have now established that it is necessary for clients to know LDP beforehand, i think it would be interesting to figure out how this works in practice. for example, how can a client tell a server that it supports LDP, so that the server can start serving LDP representations?

You jump from an LDP resource to the notion of a server. No idea why. A server may have just one ldp resource. All it needs to do is
say somewhere where that ldpc is. That can be done in the right places ( wherever those happen to be ) by putting the following:

   </some/long/path/container/> a ldp:Container .

Was that so difficult?



> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 18:04:36 UTC

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