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

On 5 Jun 2013, at 21:20, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:

>>>> 
>>>> 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">
>> So to try to answer that again :) ... the mechanism is term grounding
>> via namespaces in RDF, but that only takes you to the tiny part of the
>> spec that defines that term; it cannot and should not inherit all the
>> conformance criteria of the totality of the referenced specification
>> (because there shouldn't be any there, as I've said before) or
>> anything else that would, in effect, change the (uniform) interface.
> 
> that's basically kingsley's argument saying that "since RDF can describe anything and everything this will probably also work. somehow. i am just not telling you how." so, please treat alexandre and me to explaining how the general model you're referring to solves the concrete question of figuring out (at runtime!) how interactions based on methods such as PUT, POST, and PATCH work, without having any prior knowledge of the vocabulary that's being used.

What vocabulary is the client not meant to know, what is it meant to know?

If you know 

  <> a ldp:Container .

Then you can try POSTing Turtle to it, and you can expect to create a new resource.
( see spec ).

What I think you wantis a way to tell the client that he can only post certain types
of graphs. That would require a language to do that, which given that this group
is not even capable of getting a PATCH langauge sorted has very little chance of
being done here. Which is why probably some other forum will be required to 
work on it.

Just as a pointer to a way to constrain this would be:

 <> postConstraint """
     ASK { <> a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument;
              foaf:primaryTopic ?p .
           ?p foaf:name ?name ;
              foaf:age ?age . }
    """^^lang:sparql .


or the same but replacing postConstraint with a :mebershipValidation relation .   
Or a whole number of other ways of specifying the range of ldp:contains
( as per ISSUE-79 ) for a particular container, ie something close to an 
owl constraint.
 
Henry

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 21:56:02 UTC