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

Re: A modest attempt to re-open ISSUE-20

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:57:25 -0700
Message-ID: <51420175.4020600@berkeley.edu>
To: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
CC: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
hello james.

On 2013-03-14 9:52 , James Leigh wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 09:43 -0700, Erik Wilde wrote:
>> it's not the client's thing to decide on URIs for new resources, at
>> least in the usual case. servers manage the URI namespace and assign
>> URIs for new resources. clients may suggest URIs (well, mostly certain
>> path components of them) using HTTP Slug, but they cannot depend on the
>> server actually using these components.
> Sure, but there is nothing wrong with the client suggesting the URI to
> use in the posted RDF model itself. The server is under no obligation to
> accept the RDF as-is.

you're right that the server could rewrite the request RDF (maybe based 
on the Slug URI also provided) and thus transform the suggested RDF into 
the actual RDF being persisted. i think this works on a technical level, 
but i think it would be a rather odd way of handling things. but that's 
certainly just my personal view.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 16:57:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:10 UTC