- From: Martynas Jusevicius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:45:52 +0300
- To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
Lets step back from the philosophical discussion a bit. By defining a media type per problem domain, you would break Linked Data for existing RDF software as it would not be able to recognise custom types. You would also prevent generic web application design, as a generic application cannot build on a vocabulary or type system that is uncontrolled. What it can use is a generic representation format, such as text/turtle. Martynas graphityhq.com On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote: > On 06/04/2013 01:21 AM, Henry Story wrote: >> >> >> On 3 Jun 2013, at 22:30, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> >>> On 6/3/13 3:31 PM, Erik Wilde wrote: >>>> >>>> which would get to the touchy issue of media types. >>>> application/api-problem+json and application/api-problem+xml are the current >>>> media types, would an RDF model follow what pattern and expose >>>> application/api-problem+turtle? >>> >>> No, since API problems ultimately boil down to entity relationships. The >>> format is ultimately irrelevant. >>> >> >> Agree with Kingsely. This issue is not touchy: it is settled. >> >> In RDF you don't need to create a media type for your responses, >> text/turtle will >> do. The reason you have to do this with JSON is because, lacking >> namespaces you have no idea without the >> media type wha the content is. > > > I fail to understand where Erik's idea would be bad. The goal of the > spec is clear: > > [[ > This document defines a "problem detail" as an extensible way to carry > machine-readable details of errors in a HTTP response, to avoid the > need to invent new response formats for HTTP APIs. > ]] > > application/api-problem already conveys the informations we'd want, > right? We would just have to register +turtle as a new Structured > Syntax Suffix and map the existing model to the RDF meta-model. > > That's the same discussion than with application/ldp+turtle... > > >> >> More useful would be to find which ontologies express the relevant >> information the user would need. > > > What's already defined in application/api-problem is not enough? I > don't know, I haven't looked carefully, but I would start there > anyway. > > Alexandre. > > >> >> Henry >> >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 14:46:20 UTC