- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:09:35 +0100
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Hi all, On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:23, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote: > - Section 5.4.8 says that "LDPC servers MUST interpret the null relative URI for the subject of triples... as referring to the entity in the request body". I understand why you would want to do that, but this is another case where implementors should be expected to scream. You are asking them to introspect each triple during ingest just in case it might contain a null relative URI in the. subject position. Then you are asking them to assign a URI for the resource before the parsing is known to be valid... The more I think about this, the more I think that this is a real problem for implementors. Load speeds are always an issue and this would make things much worse. Would the WG accept a compromise? I propose that clients MUST inform servers if they expect null relative URIs to be placed with the newly created URI for the resource. That way, servers only need to incur the cost of the extra parsing and computation when they are told they need to do it. Does that work? The flag can be passed to the server on the PUT URL by appending ?updateNull or some such. Regards, Dave
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2012 20:09:57 UTC