- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:35:41 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- CC: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
hello richard. On 2012-11-05 13:08 , "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: >On 5 Nov 2012, at 20:40, David Wood wrote: >> 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 >I think the question of user-supplied ³slugs² sort of fell under the >table when we discussed ISSUE-20; we focused on the issue of relative >URIs. +1 to look at slugs or slug-like concepts. it is a useful implementation of the concept of providing clients with some control over the namespace, but still giving servers final control. it's important to keep in mind, though, that slugs are meant mainly to control centralized naming (the header determines the final path component of the created URI), so for supporting decentralized scenarios (where you might want to supply the canonical URI that's not under the control of the LDP server), this probably could not be directly adopted. cheers, dret.
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 21:36:03 UTC