Re: Updated Protocol draft available

And circling back to the non 404/410 issues:

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
> - End of introduction, terminologal issue: third bullet items refers to
> "hosting system", whereas in, eg, 1.1 we refer to clients and server. This
> is also the term used in the terminology section. Shouldn't we use "server"
> instead of "hosting system"?
>

+1 hosting system --> annotation server


> - Editorial issue: I think it is worth the trouble (at some point, not
> necessarily in the FPWD) to add explicit links into the LDP document for
> terms like Containers, Basic Containers, etc. A reference to the HTTP
> header entries (mainly the not very well known ones, like 'Vary') may also
> be useful.
>

+1 ... though exactly where those links would go is a bit amorphous for
LDP, given its layout.


> - I think it will be worth adding a separate section listing the
> additional constraints, with a reference back to the place where it is
> defined (I beleive respec gives neat tricks to do that).
>

+1 This is issue #38




> - Section on 'Paging Responses', first sentence, reference to [ldp-paging]
> is missing.
>

+1 Ooops :)



> - Shouldn't it HTTP in responses include the '; profile="
> http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/jsonLdProfile"' with the
> 'Content-Type: application/ld+json' header?
>

In all protocol responses? Required, recommended or optional?

The advantage in the request for context based content negotiation is
pretty easy ... requiring servers to add the header rather than assuming it
as a default is likely not hard, but maybe unnecessary.  Happy to add it
and see if we get feedback on it.  (Will make an issue to track it)


- If an annotation is deleted, per
> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpc-HTTP_DELETE, the reference to that
> resource is removed from a container; I think this is worth repeating in
> the text. Let alone that fact that if this happens, the URI-s the client
> has for the container pages may change and even become 404-s in case the
> last page contained a single resource which is the one deleted...
>

+1 to reiterating that the reference is removed from the container. Better
to be explicit when possible.

Thanks Ivan!

Rob


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305