Re: representing hypermedia controls in RDF

On 11/25/13 2:33 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Hi Kingsley,
>
>>> In my talks, I say that enabling is stronger than affording.
>> Do you have a link to the talk in question?
> Well, it's something I always mention verbally, so "enabling" will not be on the slides.
>
> Nevertheless, here's a presentation on it for a wide audience:
> http://www.slideshare.net/RubenVerborgh/the-web-a-hypermedia-story
> On slides 41–46, I explain Fielding's definition of hypermedia,
> with slides 44–46 specifically focusing on "affordance".
>
> And here are slides for my research project "Distributed Affordance" (what's in a name),
> which explains the topic in a similar way on slides 7–18:
> http://www.slideshare.net/RubenVerborgh/distributed-affordance-21175728
>
> Affordance is in my opinion the crucial word that defines the REST architectural style,
> as its loose conversational coupling is only possible because representations _afford_ subsequent actions;
> RPC-style interactions just _enable_ those actions.
>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
>

I will digest you presentation, and then comment afterwards (*more than 
likely off-list*) on the word "Affordance" and whether it is immutable 
with regards to REST oriented narratives. Note, "Affordance" doesn't 
show up in any of the standard dictionaries I have access to. That said, 
it does have a Wiktionary entry [1], but that particular definition 
doesn't actually make a case for it being immutable or devoid of an 
alternative :-)

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen