Re: ISSUE-36: Summary of ways of making containers

On 1/26/13 6:40 AM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello pierre-antoine.
>
> On 2013-01-25 19:54 , "Pierre-Antoine Champin"
> <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> At the risk of joining you on the stake, I find this interesting as well.
>> However, I think Erik's proposal in another thread, to use the notion of
>> profile [1], sounds like a more general approach to me: the client may
>> not only expect the primaryNode to
>> be of the primaryType. It will also expect that the primaryNode will
>> have a number of "mandatory" properties. This kind of constraint may be
>> captured by the notion of profile.
> yes, that's what this mechanism is supposed to do. the (original) idea was
> to make the specialization of media types a bit more self-describing,
> without requiring all specializations to mint new media types. the
> mechanism is fairly simple and general, and in particular only talks about
> how to signal specializations (by using "profile" links), and not how to
> define/describe them (the link target does not have to be dereferencable,
> it's just an identifier).

Yes, but note, when the subject matter is "Linked Data" or the protocol 
is "Linked Data oriented" or the platform is "Linked Data..." there is a 
basic set of rules:

1. Identifiers are de-referencable .
2. Identifiers resolve to descriptor resources .
3. Descriptor resources are RDF based Linked Data graphs .
4. RDF graphs are based on the RDF model.
5. RDF's model is all about an Entity Relationship Model endowed with 
explicit machine (and human) comprehensible entity relationship semantics.
6. Entity Relationship Semantics are based on First-Order logic.

>
> come to think of it, currently this is very much a web-targeted spec,
> defining and registering the "profile" link relation in the RFC 5988
> registry. thus this will create the usual problem of how to use registered
> link relations (which are strings and not URIs) in RDF. if LDP was going
> the profile route, which might serve as a blueprint for other RDF-based
> specs that also want to expose more information through the uniform
> interface, would we only use HTTP headers for this, and thus the string
> identifier would suffice?

See my comments above. If its Linked Data the Identifiers have to be 
URIs that resolve to descriptors that bear RDF model based graphs. The 
whole system is self describing and comprehensible to humans and machines.

Best to accept what the RDF model is all about. The critical first step 
is distinguishing the RDF model from the notations used to express its 
syntax (grammar). There is a powerful model here that is based on Logic.

>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>
>
>


-- 

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