W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: AtomPub-like Slug: header (was: Re: ldp-ISSUE-31 (conformance))

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:35:41 -0500
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
CC: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCBD6FA3.B4EA%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello richard.

On 2012-11-05 13:08 , "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>On 5 Nov 2012, at 20:40, David Wood wrote:
>> Our resolution to ISSUE-20 [1] left me wondering about compliance with
>>regard to clients providing a (presumably optional) AtomPub-like Slug:
>>header (as Callimachus does).
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/20
>I think the question of user-supplied ³slugs² sort of fell under the
>table when we discussed ISSUE-20; we focused on the issue of relative
>URIs.

+1 to look at slugs or slug-like concepts. it is a useful implementation
of the concept of providing clients with some control over the namespace,
but still giving servers final control. it's important to keep in mind,
though, that slugs are meant mainly to control centralized naming (the
header determines the final path component of the created URI), so for
supporting decentralized scenarios (where you might want to supply the
canonical URI that's not under the control of the LDP server), this
probably could not be directly adopted.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 21:36:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:42 UTC