- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:29:00 +0000
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 10/01/13 09:45, Wilde, Erik wrote: > hello all. > > On 2013-01-10 10:39 , "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Henry Story wrote: >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 11:54, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> >>> wrote: >>>> An alternative proposal might be to just take the rdfs:label (or maybe >>> >from list of established vocab for 'labels') from the POSTed body as a >>>> 'hint' for a name (?) >>> That seems to be a compatible proposal. >> Well, as soon as you have two ways of doing the same thing, you end up >> dealing with conflicts (setting precedence, be sure that a client that >> uses only RDF is not ignoring the SLUG header etc...). It is far better >> to >> avoid that kind of duplicates. > > +1; anything that can be handled on the protocol level should be handled > on the protocol level. falling back to content sniffing should only be > done in those cases where we cannot properly expose interaction semantics > through HTTP mechanisms. so my vote goes to adopting Slug, and using this > as the only mechanism. > > cheers, > > dret. I prefer the Slug mechanism but for a different reason. The body of a request is the desired state of the target. It is not a description of the request itself but the final state of the resource. "<> rdfs:label" is about the resource. So I don't know what the subject of the rdfs:label would be. I think rdfs:label is use for other things (display labels). And
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 10:29:30 UTC