Re: Section 4: LDPR/non-LDPR formal definitions

On 25 Mar 2013, at 21:01, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 3/25/13 3:50 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>> 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.

Ok. I understand your reasoning now. But I don't agree that this is a good reason to do this. RDF was
always meant to be used as linked data, just as HTML was always meant to have <a href=""> links be
followed. As LDP gets deployed the overwhelming amount of published data will follow this pattern. Sites
that don't do this are pretty useless, and so will just die out, or not being linked to, be invisible.

>> 
>> cheers,
>> 
>> dret.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Okay, for the record, I support exposing RDF based Linked Data semantics via a specific media type. If I've been on the other side in the past, here is my official position retraction :-)
> 
> Generic RDF media types are problematic because they perpetuate a problematic misconception about RDF and Linked Data. To denote something with a URI != denoting something with a URI that resolves to the description of said URI's referent.
> 
> Conflating RDF simply undermines RDF's tangible virtues. IMHO., if LDP truly wants to deliver something that's useful it should seize the moment by killing off this eternal RDF & Linked Data conflation problem via a Linked Data or Linked Data Profile (LDP) media type.
> 
> RDF based Linked Data != RDF.
> RDF based Linked Data is something that RDF enables you produce, most effectively.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/