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

Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core]

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:58:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CALcoZio_+xBAaQnTBXvOB+Vf9a_pnxj9cYNF=M9m+Kfnq3=Vrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Cc: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Ruben Verborgh
<ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Let me clarify my concerns in Issue 24, based on David’s questions.
>
>>> 4.5.1 BPR servers must remove the resource identified by the Request-URI. After a successful HTTP DELETE, a subsequent HTTP GET on the same Request-URI must result in a 404 (Not found) or 410 (Gone) status code, until another resource is created or associated with the same Request-URI.
>>>
>>> Isn't the creation of another resource in contradiction with Cool URIs?
>>
>> Yes, but that is guidance, not a standard.  My two cents is that LDP should encourage ("SHOULD") Cool URIs but not demand them (via "MUST").
>
> I fully agree here.
> My issue is that the spec seems to suggest *not* to use Cool URIs, why in fact, I don’t think we should make any suggestion in any direction whatsoever. Specifically, the word “another” is a problem.
>
> Therefore, I suggest changing the final subclause to “until a subsequent action associates a resource with the Request-URI."
> This leaves open whether this resource should be the same or different.

The problem with that text - and with the original - is that it
attempts to redefine HTTP DELETE.

As long as a server deletes, or intends to delete, the identified
resource, it can justify returning 2xx. But because it is on the other
side of a trust boundary, it is also free do a lot more than that,
including immediately (or whenever it feels like it) setting the state
of the resource to whatever it chooses. There is no expectation at any
point that a 404 or 410 be returned, nor is there a requirement that
re-binding the URI with a new resource has to wait to happen until a
"subsequent action". Attempts to change this would ensure that LDP
clients could not be Web clients as they'd be using a different
contract for LDP resources than they would any other Web resource.

I suggest removing that section entirely (and others like it.. though
that's a topic for another post :)

Mark.
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2012 13:58:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:32 UTC