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

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]

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:53:35 -0800
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF36463DB5.DE93A407-ON88257B03.0075D9EE-88257B03.00784385@us.ibm.com>
Sergio Fernández wrote:

> For me we can try to 
> work on the issue by mail, and then discuss it when we'd have time in 
> following calls.

Please, do! This is really the way we should try to work in general. There 
is just not enough call time to discuss and resolve every issue. We should 
try and form concrete proposals that are put before the group for 
resolution on the calls. Of course we may still need some discussion on 
the call but it will be much more effective if it is based on a concrete 
proposal.
Thank you.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at> wrote on 
01/30/2013 09:30:56 AM:

> From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
> To: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, 
> Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "Linked Data Platform 
> (LDP) Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 01/30/2013 09:32 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 Raúl,
> 
> On 30/01/13 09:17, Raúl García Castro wrote:
> > As Arnaud says, the issue is not resolved yet. Since in the last 
telcos
> > there was not time for discussing it, maybe we can try to advance
> > discussion here.
> 
> I've joined the last two calls, that's why I asked. For me we can try to 

> work on the issue by mail, and then discuss it when we'd have time in 
> following calls.
> 
> > The general opinion in the mailing list is that the servers do not to
> > restrict any property. Therefore, I propose the following in order to
> > close the issue:
> >
> > .- To remove from 4.4.1 the following statement:
> > [[
> > 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.
> > ]]
> 
> +1 to remove it, sure. Those properties could refer to the actual data, 
> and not to the managed resources.
> 
> > .- To include in 4.4.1 the following statement:
> > [[
> > However, BPR servers MAY ignore server-managed properties.
> > ]]
> >
> > One example of the need for this second statement is the following: I
> > upload a photo to flickr and later I try to update this photo saying
> > that the owner is another person. flickr business logic won't allow me
> > to do that.
> 
> I see the use case. Let me think about it, and I'll come back with a 
> more detailed proposal for sec. 4.4.1.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Sergio Fernández
> Salzburg Research
> +43 662 2288 318
> Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
> A-5020 Salzburg (Austria)
> http://www.salzburgresearch.at
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 21:54:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:44 UTC