W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2014

Re: ldp wishlist for crosscloud

From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:46:23 +0100
Message-ID: <5460A58F.9090602@salzburgresearch.at>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Sandro,

On 09/11/14 18:06, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> We don't have it all figured out yet, let alone implemented, but here
> are a few of the thing we probably need.   I'm providing this list to
> help with re-chartering, although most of these are not yet mature
> enough for standardization.   Maybe they will be in 6-12 months, though.

I think it's a healthy approach for feeding LDPNext Charter...

>     As you look at this list, one thing to figure out is how will we
> know when this module is ready for the WG to take up.

Here my thoughts over some of those points.

> == 1.  Queries

This takes us too see how SPARQL and LDP actually fit together. From our 
experience sharing the same backend among both technologies we have 
identified many potential issues. But indeed that moves paging into 
another priority.

> == 2.  Change Notification to Web Servers

I'd not add pull capabilities to the LDP protocol... but probably 
because I do not see a general use case there.

> == 5.  Non-Listing Containers
>
> I want end-points that I can POST to, and GET some information about,
> without being swamped by an enumeration of everything posted there.   I
> don't want to have to include a Prefer header to avoid that swamping.

So the option to define a default Prefer header for resource, just just 
per request, right? That could be interesting.

> == 6.  PUT-to-Create

+1 we also have identified many used cases where that would be nice to 
have it.

> == 7.  DELETE WHERE

That's clearly part of the first point.

> == 10.  Access Control

I have to admit I lost the connection with that task force, so we need 
to catch up and come to real-world solutions.

> == 11.  Combined Metadata and Content operations

I'd not mess-up content as metadata, but rather properly linking (e.g., 
dct:hasFormat/dct:isFormatOf) to the different representations of LDP-RS 
and LDP-NR.

> 12.  Forwarding

+1 for having ldp mv, but probably I'd prefer a solution where the 
action should get materialized in the model as LDP-R. Versioning is 
again interesting having such kind of operations in the protocol.

Let's keep discussing.

Cheers,

-- 
Sergio Fernández
Senior Researcher
Knowledge and Media Technologies
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/3 | 5020 Salzburg, Austria
T: +43 662 2288 318 | M: +43 660 2747 925
sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at
http://www.salzburgresearch.at
Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 11:46:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:59 UTC