Re: LDP Paging Comments

Hi Benjamin,

Thanks for your feedback.  I'm following up on this specific thread
though, this topic has been discussed on a different thread [1] which
I won't repeat here.  Hopefully this addresses your comments.

[1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2014Sep/0005.html

Thanks,
Steve Speicher

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Benjamin Armintor <armintor@gmail.com> wrote:
> To whom it may concern:
>
> I'm working on a REST API specification for a project that is interested in
> LDP compliance, so please forgive the late timing of this comment in the
> editorial process.
>
> I believe I understand the intended value of the LDP-Paging spec, but I
> think (as an implementor of clients and servers) that LDP might be better
> served by the simpler, but more restrictive, approach of elaborating the
> HTTP 1.1 Range Request specification to include member and perhaps triple as
> Range units.
>
> The current LDP Paging spec reifies a paged request in a way that is
> valuable from a certain perspective of replayability, but unusual in that it
> seems to allow the client less control than is typically expected of paged
> resources. Consider the following version of Example 3:
>
> GET /customer-relations HTTP/1.1
> Host: example.org
> Accept: text/turtle
> Range: triples=1-500
> Prefer: return=representation
>
> The server might reply with:
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Content-Type: text/turtle
> ETag: "_87e52ce291112"
> Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type",
>       <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Page>; rel="type"
> Link: <http://example.org/customer-relations>; rel='canonical';
> etag="customer-relations-v1"
> Allow: GET,OPTIONS,HEAD
> ...
>
> if the entire representation could be fulfilled, or:
> HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
> Content-Type: text/turtle
> Content-Range: triples 1-500/600
>
> for a paged response. Alternately, instead of triple limits the client may
> just request pages of members:
> GET /customer-relations HTTP/1.1
> Host: example.org
> Accept: text/turtle
> Range: members=1-10
> Prefer: return=representation
>
> with partial responses:
> HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
> Content-Type: text/turtle
> Content-Range: members 1-10/12
>
> This approach would be, I think, a much more natural approach to pages of
> members- it leverages the HTTP 1.1 features already required of LDP and
> makes paging logic more transparent to the client. At first blush it seems
> less linkable, but the opacity of a page link in the current spec and the
> reliance on additional request headers regardless make its links less useful
> than they appear at first blush. It also gives servers and clients
> well-defined ways to advertise their ability to process the paged requests
> (and types of pages) within the confines of existing REST specifications.
>
> Regards,
>   Benjamin Armintor

Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 13:04:55 UTC