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

On 3/26/13 5:41 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> True, but if it's just a parameter on the media type then we can mostly just ignore it…
> I don't think we're here to create standards that we will ignore in order
> to help some people overcome problems that they only thought existed.
>

Bearing in mind that we do have a problem re. RDF and RDF based Linked 
Data conflation that's hidden via best practices adopted by RDF based 
Linked Data tools implementers. What would you suggest as a solution? We 
have to solve this problem.

I believe Erik's "text/plain" and "text/html" analogy frames the problem 
nicely. For instance, look back to the thread between yourself and Andy 
about relative URIs and RDF graphs [1][2]. We have a single media type 
serving two distinct functions i.e., graph expression (relative URIs are 
fine here) and actual graph serialization (relative URIs aren't 
acceptable here).

Links:

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Oct/0132.html 
-- sample post from relative URIs and RDF graphs thread .
2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0095.html 
-- ditto  .

-- 

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

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 12:43:28 UTC