W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: issue-89 proposals

From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:11:56 -0500
Message-ID: <52AF183C.70401@w3.org>
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>, public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 12/16/2013 09:58 AM, John Arwe wrote:
> Proposal 3: omits PATCH, which allows creation.  As with issue 90 proposal
> 2, probably true that if you were to add that PATCH works "mostly" like
> POST, it's covered.

I still don't know how PATCH works with resource creation.

>
>
> Proposal 3: "A successful POST on the LDPC results in a new containment
> triple, the containment object being the URL returned in the Location
> header. Note: this is true for any LDPR, including an LDPB. "  Is the
> intent that this be a MUST or a MAY?  As phrased I would guess it's a
> MUST, in the sense of "If an LDPC supports creation of members via LDP,
> then it MUST..."

This is just 5.4.1.

> Proposal 5:  Am I correctly gathering that your intent is to Replace the
> current non-member resource with the non-containment resource, as "change"
> would imply?

Based on the feedback I've had, yes.

>  Versus adding something new alongside what-currently-is?

If this is what the group wants, this could also be done.

>
> Proposal 5:  Am I correctly gathering that your intent is that all of the
> following are true?
> (1) retrieval of a container gets a client "all" (modulo paging
> discussions) the containment, membership, and non-member properties as a
> minimum

By default, yes.

> (2) clients desiring to avoid both the membership and containment triples
> follow a link header to something analogous to the non-member-properties
> resource

If we keep that one, yes.

> (3) clients desiring to avoid only the containment triples follow a link
> header to something analogous to the non-member-properties resource
> unioned with membership triples

Correct. The only feedback was more or less "we don't care about the 
containment triples and are only interested in the membership triples, 
we just want something that reflects that".

> (4) any additional triples like member-properties triples can be added to
> any of 1-3 at the server's discretion
> Implying there is no way for a client to see only the non-member
> properties unioned with the containment triples.  Which I'm fine with, if
> that's your intent.

True.

Alexandre.

>
>
> Best Regards, John
>
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
>
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 15:12:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:54 UTC