Re: Prefer URI for LDP Server Managed Properties

> Given the discussion regarding server managed properties, we think 
> it would be useful to define them formally ...

*Since I think this is editorial*, i.e. it would not alter the progression 
of the spec process-wise, I've been leaning in that direction too as the 
discussion probably suggests.

> ... and give them an 
> identifying URI for the prefer header.  

Your email is the first I've heard or suspected that they need a URI for 
any reason, so this "less obvious" to me at the moment.
As in: "why again?"  i.e. which *existing* use cases don't the existing 
specs cover, and this new URI closes that gap?

> ...  That would allow clients to send: 
>     
return=representation;omit=http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#preferServerManaged
>  to exclude those properties in a standard way.

It's true that LDP could define that.
I'm still flummoxed at "why again?" though.
Adding this also raises the bar on specificity and completeness, since 
(even if supporting this hypothetical new preference is optional) 
implementations need to have a reliable sense of whether or not they're 
implementing it "correctly".

If there's a new use case that you want to *add* to the current LDP 1.0 
scope, proposing a change to the UC&R document would be the first step. 
Otherwise, back to "...existing..." above.
Given that we're one step away from the AC voting step on base LDP, my 
guess is that it would have to be a pretty glaring omission for the WG to 
add it to 1.0.

Dealing with it in LDP-next would be the default starting point.



FYI: I expect to be pseudo-offline for an indeterminate period (order: 
days) starting today due to having to mail my laptop out for repairs.  I'm 
going to draft some of the changes for recently converged discussions 
later today, but I may have to post news of that from my GMail ID or some 
other random place depending upon how nicely the loaner PC plays with me.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
z/VM OpenStack Enablement and zKVM