- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:35:51 -0400
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-ldp@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > > On 28 Mar 2013, at 03:27, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote: >> i'd say there are three different ways you find, generally speaking, types links in XML these days: >> >> 1: specific link vocabulary: <form action="" .../> is a good example for a specific link in a vocabulary. the interaction is non-trivial (requiring packaging rules to be implemented that tell you how to submit for fields and either sent a GET/POST). <img src=""/> is the same, but much simpler. here the interaction is retrieval, the assumption is to GET some image/* representation. > > Yes, just write out a vocabulary that describes an html form. It's not very difficult to do. Mark Baker > did it with RDF Forms: > > http://www.markbaker.ca/2003/05/RDF-Forms/ Right. And FWIW, I did consider some of the issues Erik discusses, about how to "raise the bar" so that a "form" would be as native to the data model as a URI. And I certainly could have gone this way, only I realized that it didn't really buy us much, and the cost of a new media type is always very high (and yes, I believe the only way to do this properly is with a new one). But I always saw this as a deployment consideration, not an architectural imperative, as there is no semantic difference between what Erik calls a "link" and a URI as used in RDF. Mark.
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 14:36:19 UTC