W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: ldp-ISSUE-31 (conformance): Proper Conformance section for LDP spec [Linked Data Platform core]

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:40:44 -0500
Message-Id: <24D20D70-554A-412D-BB83-D936D1094F0F@3roundstones.com>
To: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,

On Nov 5, 2012, at 15:33, "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> ldp-ISSUE-31 (conformance): Proper Conformance section for LDP spec [Linked Data Platform core]
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/31
> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
> On product: Linked Data Platform core
> Like any good spec, LDP needs a proper conformance section. The current one only has a bit of boilerplate.
> It seems to me that LDP puts conformance constraints (statements involving MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc.) on two kinds of artefacts: LDP servers and LDP clients. The Conformance section should explicitly list those two as Conformance Classes.
> See http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-protocol/#conformance for an example from another spec. (It's a matter of taste whether the Conformance section contains all conformance statements, or whether it only says that all conformance statements made throughout the spec apply.)

+1. Richard beat me to it.  Our resolution to ISSUE-20 [1] left me wondering about compliance with regard to clients providing a (presumably optional) AtomPub-like Slug: header (as Callimachus does).


[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/20

Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 20:41:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:33 UTC