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

Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 09:22:04 -0500
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF1928ED72.BC42852F-ON85257B08.004E755A-85257B08.004EED93@us.ibm.com>
"non-member properties" refers to 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-ldp-20121025/#http-get-1 5.3.2
I updated the wiki page with this link (to the FPWD which should be 
Cool-er on the 5.3.2 ptr numbering over time)

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario

From:   "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
To:     John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" 
Date:   02/01/2013 05:17 AM
Subject:        Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

hello john.

On 2013-01-31 22:01 , "John Arwe" <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>Not having seen any replies to [1], wondering if it got lost in the
>shuffle.  This is the same proposal [2] mentioned on this week's call for
>how to resolve the issue and define an interaction model covering both
> and composition.[1]
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34:_Back_to_Basics

when you say that in aggregations, there is a separate GET for "non-member
properties", are you referring to properties of members that are not
specified by LDP? if so, why would you split members this way? we can
cleanly specify which properties we regard as being meaningful in the
context of LDP, and then when you GET a member, those ones which are
specified as being meaningful for LDP can be identified, and all the other
ones are the ones which i think you were referring to. but i may have
misunderstood the term to begin with. did i?


Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 14:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:45 UTC