Re: Linked Data Platform - Next

Thank you, Alexandre.  I will probably take you up on this offer, once I
have the business side of it sorted out.  Oh, by the way everyone, I knew
that Startin'Blox and Solid were LDP implementations.  But, in the way I
had phrased my original question, I had made it seem as if I was asserting
they were alternatives to LDP.  But I am glad for the interesting
discussion.

Eric Jahn
CTO/Data Architect
Alexandria Consulting LLC
St. Petersburg, Florida
727.537.9474
alexandriaconsulting.com


On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:01 AM Alexandre Bourlier <alexandre@happy-dev.fr>
wrote:

> Hi LDP Next,
> Hi Eric,
>
> Startin'blox cofounder speaking.
>
> Very interesting discussion. I've learned a few things :-)
>
> @*Eric* : If you want more info about how we do implement Solid & LDP, I
> feel it is out of the scope of this mailing list but we'd be happy to walk
> you through the code base and discuss architectural decisions that were
> made along the way.
>
> Have a good day everyone
>
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 20:47, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On 18 Jul 2020, at 20:39, Aaron Coburn <acoburn@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Henry,
>> >
>> > Actually, it does:
>> https://solid.github.io/specification/#uri-slash-semantics
>>
>> Ah sorry I was thinking of LDP which does not.
>>
>> Solid should be an extension of LDP and it should provide an relation that
>> is a subPropertyOf ldp:contains to do this. It makes sense to model this
>> type of resource too, since most web servers follow that convention
>> and it is a natural way to do things, allowing one then to better work
>> with relative URLs. The problem with LDP is that it does not allow one
>> to know that a new resource is within a container, so that one cannot
>> publish documents with ../ relative urls.
>>
>> But the whole process should be based on following links. I’d need to
>> look at the developments in solid more carefully though.
>>
>> >
>> > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 13:55, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 18 Jul 2020, at 19:50, Aaron Coburn <acoburn@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Second (related to the FS analogy mentioned earlier): Solid puts a
>> lot of emphasis on the semantics of slashes in URLs (e.g. containers always
>> end with slashes), which means the LDP interaction model can be derived
>> from the other parts of a request, rather than from client-supplied Link
>> headers. This (arguably) simplifies the client-server interaction, since
>> clients no longer need to supply explicit link headers when creating
>> resources; the idea here is that HTTP clients already supply a request URL
>> and Content-Type and web developers are (arguably) more familiar with those
>> compared to link headers. This also means that, when building Solid on top
>> of LDP, the server can accept an explicit interaction model, but if one
>> isn't present, a server-level filter can derive one from other information
>> in the request. And since Solid only uses basic containment, there are
>> really only three relevant interaction models: LDP-RS, LDP-NR and LDP-BC.
>> >
>> > Solid makes no requirements on slashes. Those are given as examples, as
>> they
>> > help make intuitive sense of the protocols, as they map nicely to file
>> system
>> > intuitions. Clients and servers have to discover resources by following
>> links.
>> >
>> > Henry Story
>> >
>> > https://co-operating.systems
>> > WhatsApp, Signal, Tel: +33 6 38 32 69 84‬
>> > Twitter: @bblfish
>> >
>>
>> Henry Story
>>
>> https://co-operating.systems
>> WhatsApp, Signal, Tel: +33 6 38 32 69 84‬
>> Twitter: @bblfish
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Alexandre BOURLIER
> +33 651 710 821
> https://happy-dev.fr <http://happy-dev.fr>
> https://startinblox.com
>