- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:40:44 -0500
- To: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <24D20D70-554A-412D-BB83-D936D1094F0F@3roundstones.com>
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). Regards, Dave [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/20
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 20:41:12 UTC