W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: ldp-ISSUE-10 (Guidance around ETags): Include clarifications and guidance around ETags [Linked Data Platform core]

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:58:53 +0100
Cc: "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FFCF1633-B341-4C72-845A-672DC8D33E37@bblfish.net>
To: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>

On 4 Feb 2013, at 11:53, Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wilde, Erik [mailto:Erik.Wilde@emc.com]
> 
>> On 2013-02-04 09:24 , "Raúl García Castro" <rgarcia@fi.upm.es> wrote:
>>> .- I think that using ETags should be a MUST, since it is the minimum
>>> requirement for detecting conflicts in updates.
> ...
>> 
>>> .- I would keep things simple and not mention in the specification
>>> things like using :weakEtag properties in resource descriptions.
>> 
>> +1, let's keep HTTP concepts in HTTP.
> 
> To be clear _here_  (yes - I did raise etags in resource descriptions in
> another context), we're recommending using weak ETags, not in resource
> descriptions, but in the response header.
> Can we agree that the use of weak ETags with RDF content should at least
> be a best practice recommendation?

+1 for best practice. 

Also while we are at it, is there a good efficient algorithm for calculating this?

( I suppose just the hash for the hash of every triples )

> 
> Steve.
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/



Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 10:59:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:29 UTC