Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Explain clearly the difference from LDP #213

Open
berezovskyi opened this issue Mar 9, 2018 · 2 comments
Open

Explain clearly the difference from LDP #213

berezovskyi opened this issue Mar 9, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@berezovskyi
Copy link
Member

I think some fraction of the users can be expected to know what RDF is and might have heard about LDP (though not have studied the spec in detail). When such users land on oslc.co, they need a clear explanation of how OSLC builds on top of LDP for [thousand reasons here] but extends it with the [a few useful concepts here] concepts to make it particularly suitable for systems integration.

Just an idea, because I had to touch upon it in the paper draft I am working on right now for the semweb people.

@jamsden
Copy link
Member

jamsden commented Mar 12, 2018

I have something on how OSLC builds on WWW architecture and HATEOAS. But basically LDP provides the containers for resources, and the Link headers provide incremental discovery information. Its also possible to have LDPCs correspond to OSLC ServiceProviders to bring these too approaches together.

@jamsden
Copy link
Member

jamsden commented Dec 13, 2018

LDP also defines the predictable resource representations: Turtle and JSON-LD. So LDP provides a predictable way to know what the resources are, and how they are organized. OSLC utilizes LDP, but is not necessarily a generic LDP server. Rather it uses LDP to specify how servers provide resource operations, using the same approach as LDP for resource representations and organization.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants