Re: Banging the identity drum again, this time REST-style

Hi Andrew,

I'll ignore everything Patrick has said and you've responded since
this e-mail is shorter. In fact, I'll ignore everything you wrote. ;)

IMO RFC 5988 is nice, but does not help (us?) (yet).

RFC 5988 specifies a binary link (with some context like media type
etc., so it's not necessarily a binary link) between resources.

Further, the spec is (maybe intentionally) silent about the
interpretation of the body of an response. Is the body necessary if
the header provides all information? How do you interpret differences
between the header and the body?

For simplification I'd reduce RFC 5988 to triples:
resource - has-relationship-to - another-resource

How would that help Topic Maps? If you favour TMDM you can use
AsTMa=/CTM templates to create associations between resources. Or if
you aren't a fan of AsTMa=/CTM you may map the "rel" attribute aka
property to proper TMDM role types... .  Triples? Properties? Hmmm...
;) Isn't this an RDF -> Topic Maps mapping?

Yes it is.

Yeah! It mentions key/value pairs... TMRM is about key/value pairs...
Great, but keys (and values) in TMRM don't have necessarily an IRI...
.

I still see some value for RFC 5988 but not for Topic Maps.

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>

<https://twitter.com/larsheuer/> Twitter
<http://www.topicmaps.de/mailinglist/> German Topic Maps mailing list
<http://tinytim.sourceforge.net/> Open Source Topic Maps engine
<http://mappa.semagia.com/> Mappa - Python Topic Maps engine