W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-comments@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Comments on LDP TR http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130730/ ( LC-2834)

From: <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 00:14:08 +0000
Message-Id: <E1VhTWa-0005Wk-FD@jessica.w3.org>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: public-ldp-comments@w3.org,Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>, Tabulator Developers <tabulator@lists.csail.mit.edu>
 Dear Tim Berners-Lee ,

The Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Linked Data Platform 1.0
published on 30 Jul 2013. Thank you for having taken the time to review the
document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-ldp-comments@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 22 November
2013. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation


For the Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group,
Eric Prud'hommeaux
Yves Lafon
W3C Staff Contacts

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/4DC77AA1-2559-466C-A1E2-6391039E63E0@w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/


Your comment on :
> 4.5.6.  You allow servers which do not support PUT or PATCH or POST. 
> Why?   A client using such a server will have no write  ability at all,
> and so your spec as a protocol delivers zero value on top of HTTP GET. 
> Suggest change all to MUST, or make two levels of server,  one which
> supports PUT and PATCH and no collections, and one which supports
> everything.
> ...
> 4.8 PATCH is optional.  Suggest a MUST. PATCH is to first order the only
> thing LDP provides over WebDav.
> 4.8.2 MUST
> Suggest specify a the subset of sparql-update we use at the moment as  a
> mandatory patch format to get basic interop, with  possible later
> extension to other languages.
> *******
> Something I mentioned in a mail  a long time ago is the necessity of
> doing 
> atomic flag (P/V) operations with a PATCH.
> To recap, you have to be able to do a form of DELETE triple(s) which
> will FAIL
> and prevent any corresponding INSERT from happening.  This is top be 
> able to allocate shared resources.
> Eg     DELETE   { :x :nextID 4 }  INSERT DATA { ?x :nexID 5 }.
> Hmm.   Maybe this is covered by the ETag system sufficiently.
> If so, the case should be given as an worked example and put in as a
> test case.
> A collaborative system which allows atomic flag setting is fundamentally
> more valuable
> than one which doesn't.

Working Group Resolution (LC-2834):
The LDP specification brings several features such as paging and containers
that are useful even in case of a read-only server.

As for PATCH, everybody wants it but given the lack of a standard PATCH
format and the WG timeframe it is unpractical for LDP to make PATCH
mandatory. The WG is however committed to encourage support for PATCH and
will do so via the LDP Best Practices and Guidelines document the WG plans
to publish as a Note.
As soon as a standard PATCH format is available the WG will revise the LDP
spec to make use of it.

Received on Saturday, 16 November 2013 00:14:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:44:38 UTC