W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > November 2012

Re: LDP Interoperability

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:33:18 +0000
Message-ID: <50AF50EE.5010205@webr3.org>
To: Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
CC: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Hi Andrei,

As I said to Alexandre,

"IMHO, the best thing we can do is write the entire WebID 1.0 
specification for #frag URIs, and simply remove the "MUST/SHOULD use a 
#frag URI" from a normative part - this way we aren't excluding them, 
but we are firmly sitting ourselves on the #frag side, if people want to 
use 303 URIs then they're on their own and can work out the nuances and 
drawbacks entailed themselves. But we can't exclude them. Hopefully LDP 
will take the same approach."

This approach fulfils all of the requirements, and basically create a 
#frag eco system which is LDP and WebID friendly - however, critically, 
it does not exclude 303 URIs, it simply does not specify what happens 
for them, it puts them outside the scope of the specification.

if </resource/foo> 303s to </data/foo>, then </data/foo> can easily be 
an LDPR, or a WebID Profile. Whilst </resource/foo> is then whatever you 
establish it to be by looking at the RDF. I believe this is in the 
spirit of the hr14 resolution.



Andrei Sambra wrote:
> Hello all,
> In the light of tomorrow's WebID teleconf, I would like to point to the
> following wiki page containing a list of requirements for WebID [1]. Please
> take your time and read through it before the teleconf starts. The purpose
> of this document is to establish what the purpose of WebID is.
> Thank you!
> Andrei
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/Requirements
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>wrote:
>> On 11/22/2012 01:19 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>> Alexandre, All,
>>> I've seen you mention LDP interoperability many times, I agree it's very
>>> important.
>>> A) Every LDPR is compatible WebID 1.0.
>>> B) Every WebID 1.0 Resource is compatible with LDP.
>>> You want (A), but you are asserting (B) in order to argue for a
>>> #fragment constraint.
>> Not exactly.
>> 1. The LDPR would concern only the WebID Profile. With hash URIs for
>> WebIDs, the distinction (aka. avoiding http-range-14 for WebID) would
>> be made by design.
>> 2. The relationship with LDP is basically: don't paint yourself in the
>> corner by making a choice that would introduce some incompatibility
>> with LDP. That's because 303s and HTTP POST/PUT/DELETE don't play nice
>> together.
>> Alexandre.
>>> WebID interoperability entails that we ensure (A) is true.
>>> (B) is an LDP interoperability issue, and should be addressed in the LDP
>>> WG.
>>> Best,
>>> Nathan
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 10:33:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:46 UTC