On 6 Nov 2012, at 11:31, Melvin Carvalho <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 1 November 2012 16:07, Dr. Daniel Alexander Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 1 Nov 2012, at 14:45, Melvin Carvalho <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Just touching base on this. We just spent 3 very productive days at TPAC >> with, among others, timbl and alex bertalis, who reliably informs us that he >> coined the term "WebBox". >> >> I was wondering your thoughts about working with the guidelines of the >> upcoming REC track, Linked Data Platform [1], which is being developed by >> Alex and others. >> >> I think in the case of freedombox it would be desireable to have not only a >> web identity but to tie it to GPG, which is something I've already done some >> work on. >> >> Would love to know your thoughts. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter.html > > I had a look at your link, but I have hardly any W3C experience, so I'm > struggling to understand what you'd like my thoughts on. > > In terms of working within its scope, it's difficult to say. I'm leaning > heavily towards working with a single form of JSON-LD (specifically the > "expanded" form), and putting all of my effort towards that, rather than > turtle or xml/rdf etc. Similarly, we're finding sticking to REST is really > constraining. > > The charter does mention JSON-LD, so hopefully they'll make something that > developers who like JSON will understand and want to use. > > > That's a fair comment. I guess I'm trying to work out how aligned WebBox and > Linked Data are likely to be, moving forward for things like HTTP > GET/PUT/POST/DELETE/PATCH. Sort of interested in a heads up on the direction > you are currently thinking of taking things architecturally. > > I think LDP will be compatible with JSON-LD but sets the baseline at turtle. > > There's a few JSON candidates for linked data right now, tho JSON-LD has the > most work being done. Tho one is much the same as another so long as you > add a content type you are fine. We're in a bit of a flux state at the moment, where WebBox both accepts and outputs RDF and JSON. WebBox acts more like an object-store than a triple-store, and supports versioning in its JSON object API. Because there isn't versioning in linked data PUT/POST, I don't know of whether we should support RDF PUT/POST in addition to versioned JSON. Similarly, RDF can be uploaded with WebDAV (WebBox has enough WebDAV support to be mounted with any WebDAV tool, including OS X Finder), which also doesn't do versioning. I've not thought through the consequences of having two APIs, one with version support, and one without, but I suspect there will be non-trivial issues in letting them co-exist. Best, Daniel
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
