Re: Discovery/Affordances

On 13/06/13 16:00, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote on 06/12/2013 02:11:31 AM:
>
>  > ... my message was originally in response to the
>  > complexity seemingly arising.  Is plain-simple HTTP valid interaction?
>
> I think it really depends on what you mean by that. The spec defines a
> series of requirements that must be met, even if we were to define a
> minimal level of conformance for read-only LDPR-only implementations. Do
> all these happen to be part of what you call "plain-simple HTTP valid
> interaction"?

Why read only?  PUT.

>
>  >
>  > That said, I wil suggest that either having a level of conformance
>  > for LDPR-only servers or a explicitly understood reason why such a
>  > thing isn't helpful would be good.
>  >
>  > The lower the barrier to being a compliant LDP server, the more
>  > widespread they (and clients) will be and the more data that can be
>  > integrated.
>  >
>  > Clearly, there is a tension between being so minimal as to be
>  > useless, or so minimal that an application has to add a lot of app-
>  > specific functionality; this risks going round the loop on range of
>  > applications in scope of the WG.
>  >
>  > Is a simple key-value store where the key is a URI and the value
>  > being graph data an LDP server?  How much more would it take to be one?
>
> I think I understand what you're trying to get to but this is too vague
> of a question to be answered in general.

concretely then - is httpd (or any other web server supporting 
GET/PUT/DELETE/HEAD) an LDP server?  If not, where does it fail?

	Andy

>
>  >
>  >     Andy
>
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 18:24:08 UTC