- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:11:10 +0000
- To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Niclas Hoyer <niclas@verbugt.de>
On 7 Nov 2012, at 22:38, Wilde, Erik wrote: > - designate a magic "container of containers" which essentially works as a > container factory. when you create a new member in this container, it by > definition becomes a new container that is then accessible like any other > container. Yes, that's the model that works well with the current LDP spec. The nice thing about this is that nothing needs to be said about it in the spec -- it's a pure server implementation issue. > i think there is something to be said about the fact that managing > collections might be a different set of use cases, and maybe should be > pushed to version 2 or whatever comes after what we're currently doing. > for example, it is almost certain that managing collections often will > require a different level of access control and authorization, so maybe > not including this scenario would allow us to keep or eyes focused on the > simpler use cases of just interacting with existing collections. General +1 for letting the server decide what affordances are available on what resources. Clients can of course play dirty by faking affordances via PUTting misleading LDP-ontology triples, as Nathan and Henry point out. But servers *can* avoid that by validating the incoming data or giving access only to trusted clients. That seems sufficient, and I don't think that anything needs to be done about this in our spec. Best, Richard
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 23:11:35 UTC