- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:50:15 -0700
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-ldp@w3.org
hello kingsley. On 2013-03-25 12:43 , Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 3/25/13 2:41 PM, Erik Wilde wrote: >> sort of. but type is not a registered media type parameter of turtle, >> so you cannot actually to that. also, my suggestion would be to use >> profile instead >> (http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2013/03/on-profiles.html), but that >> one isn't a registered media type parameter either. but yes, what >> you're proposing is probably what we will have to do, given that it's >> unlikely that we will actually expose the LDP-ness of LDP resources at >> the media type level. > Why not? > What's wrong with media type: application/ld+turtle, > application/ldp+turtle or whatever else to end this most recursive line > of discussion and debate? absolutely nothing is wrong with that in my mind; it's actually the opposite: i think that's what we should be doing from the REST perspective. however, it seemed to me that whenever i suggested that it would be good to expose LDP semantics on the media type level, the majority opinion in the WG was that this is not what you normally do for RDF-based designs, and that instead we should be exposing generic RDF media types. cheers, dret.
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 19:50:46 UTC