<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 6 Nov 2012, at 11:31, Melvin Carvalho <<a href="mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com">melvincarvalho@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 November 2012 16:07, Dr. Daniel Alexander Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ds@ecs.soton.ac.uk" target="_blank">ds@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div class="im"><br><div><div>On 1 Nov 2012, at 14:45, Melvin Carvalho <<a href="mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com" target="_blank">melvincarvalho@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<br>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".<br><div class="gmail_quote">
<br>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.<br>
<br>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. <br><br>Would love to know your thoughts.<br><br>
[1] <a href="http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter.html" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter.html</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The charter does mention JSON-LD, so hopefully they'll make something that developers who like JSON will understand and want to use.</div></div></blockquote><div><br><br>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.<br><br>I think LDP will be compatible with JSON-LD but sets the baseline at turtle.<br><br>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.<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>We're in a bit of a flux state at the moment, where WebBox both accepts and outputs RDF and JSON.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Daniel</div><div><br></div></body></html>