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: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:26:26 +0100
Message-ID: <5110DE52.2050201@salzburgresearch.at>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>, "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 04/02/13 11:58, Henry Story wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2013, at 11:53, Steve Battle<steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>  wrote:
>> 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 )

I'm not sure how this could deal efficiently with RDF, since there are 
some details to take into account: blank nodes, depth in the subgraph, 
outgoing triples only or also incoming, etc.

I've been briefly checking, and I didn't find so much out there, just a 
Perl implementation by Kjetil Kjernsmo:

http://search.cpan.org/~kjetilk/RDF-LinkedData-0.56/lib/RDF/LinkedData.pm#current_etag

I'd try to outline an algorithm and an implementation in Marmotta which 
could be added to the best practice document. So, Henry, maybe we can 
work together on it.

Cheers,

-- 
Sergio Fernández
Salzburg Research
+43 662 2288 318
Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
A-5020 Salzburg (Austria)
http://www.salzburgresearch.at
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 10:27:13 UTC

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