Re: ldp-ISSUE-11 (Server-managed properties): Do we need to define server-managed properties or do we leave them to applications? [Linked Data Platform core]

Hi Sergio,
although the issue has been on the agenda of several teleconferences we 
haven't managed to get to them so they are still pending resolution and 
you're free to discuss it and push for whatever resolution you'd like.
Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at> wrote on 
01/29/2013 08:40:14 AM:

> From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
> To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, 
> Cc: "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 01/29/2013 08:43 AM
> Subject: Re: ldp-ISSUE-11 (Server-managed properties): Do we need to
> define  server-managed properties or do we leave them to 
> applications? [Linked Data  Platform core]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I saw this issue at the agenda, at least, in the last to telcos, but I'm 

> not sure about its resolution...
> 
> If I still could say something, I would vote -1 to have restrictions on 
> those common metadata properties, mainly because:
> 
> - As Henry said, we should be careful distinguishing between the content 

> and the server status. HTTP already defines mechanisms for some of those 

> things ("Last-Modified" and so on).
> 
> - In case we would still want to define such data at the triple level, 
> we must not use properties already in used with completely different 
> semantics, which could cause a potential conflict with the actual data 
> manage by LDP servers.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 
> On 17/12/12 15:58, Henry Story wrote:
> > I wonder if this does not raise the issue that one should at some 
> point in the spec distinguish what the server says and what the 
> content says. I think HTTP headers is what the server is saying 
> about the content. I think it is clear that the HTTP headers is the 
> space for the server to make statements, such as last modified and 
> who made the edit - as the server can factually know this. The 
> content on the other hand is something said by the content creator. 
> Now the question is then is in true that the following equivalence 
> is true in n3
> >
> >   { {<>  dc:author ?a } = ?doc }<=>  { ?doc dc:author ?a } }
> >
> >
> > On 2 Oct 2012, at 16:14, Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group 
> Issue Tracker<sysbot+tracker@w3.org>  wrote:
> >
> >> ldp-ISSUE-11 (Server-managed properties): Do we need to define 
> server-managed properties or do we leave them to applications? 
> [Linked Data Platform core]
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/11
> >>
> >> Raised by: Raúl García Castro
> >> On product: Linked Data Platform core
> >>
> >> "4.4.1 If HTTP PUT is performed on an existing resource, BPR 
> servers must replace the entire persistent state of the identified 
> resource with the entity representation in the body of the request. 
> The only recognized exception are the properties dcterms:modified 
> and dcterms:creator that are never under client control - BPR 
> servers must ignore any values of these properties that are provided
> by the client."
> >>
> >> I think that saying that dcterms:modified and dcterms:creator 
> cannot be modified by clients is an application-specific restriction.
> >>
> >> I would not include it, but if you think that it is relevant, I 
> would rewrite it in the style of 5.5.2:
> >> "BPR servers MAY ignore server managed properties such as 
> dcterms:modified and dcterms:creator".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > A short message from my sponsors: Vive la France!
> > Social Web Architect
> > http://bblfish.net/
> >
> 
> -- 
> Sergio Fernández
> Salzburg Research
> +43 662 2288 318
> Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
> A-5020 Salzburg (Austria)
> http://www.salzburgresearch.at
>