Re: LDP drafts for review in preparation of Last Call -- deadline July 22

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Sergio Fernández <
sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> here some comments from the Apache Marmotta (incubating) project:
>
> 4.1.8 "LDPR server responses must use entity tags (either weak or strong
> ones) as response ETag header values.": I do not remember the concrete
> resolution of this issues, but I'd prefer to say SHOULD until a standard
> ETag calculation would be specified. And this would be aligned with 4.4.2
> too.
>
See:
Proposal accepted:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0053.html
Meeting where it was accepted:
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-02-11#Issue__2d_10_Guidance_around_ETags


>
> 4.2.3: Here I miss a reference to RFC 2616 Section 12 (HTTP/1.1 Content
> Negotiation).
>
Changed.

>
> 4.4.1: We still think this would be ignored by many implementations, since
> mixing metadata about the resource itself and the server status could be a
> potential conflict, specially because DC Terms is wide-spread and used in
> many applications. Anyway it is fine for us to keep the "MAY" there.
>
No change.

>
> 4.9: Beside the simple linked list structure for linking pages, maybe
> could be also added there something like "The page resource representation
> MAY have triples with the subject of the page, predicates ldp:prevPage,
> ldp:firstPage or ldp:lastPageof and object being the URL for the respective
> pages."
>
No change. This seems to be creating more concepts and vocabulary terms,
perhaps this would be good to put on wish list.

>
> 4.9.2 I think custom page size is out of the spec, so I'd add something
> "Page size MAY be decided by LDPR servers". The same could be applied for
> the name of the parameter to retrieve concrete pages: p, page or whatever.
>
Added something to the intro section.

>
> 5.3: Personally I find the explanation a bit difficult to read and
> understand. But since I have no better proposal, I'm fine with it. Maybe,
> adding a new paragraph saying something like "LDPC results ordering MUST be
> as defined by SPARQL SELECT’s ORDER BY clause [SPARQL-QUERY]" would allow
> to simplify some of the point in that section.
>
No change made.  I think this is covered in 5.3.5, I'm not sure what
specific section you are referring to as having the problem.

>
> 5.3: What about adding something like "The Client MAY specify the object
> for ldp:containerSortCriteria and ldp:containerSortCriterion."? The
> question is how.
>
> No change made. Not sure what the issue is and how this solves it.

5.3.1: I'd change the link to the example ("as in the example") to refer
> the concrete example, I think example 6. Currently does not work when
> printing.
>
No change made. We'd have to manual do this, respec bug.  Will put on
editor backlog.


>
> 5.4: For a non-LDPR POSTed to the LDP server, the server may create a
> corresponding LDPR. The non-LDPR may Link (HTTP-Header) to it's
> associated LDPR using the "meta"-relation - why not add the also an
> inverse Link (HTTP Header) using e.g. the "content"-relation?
>
No change. Never was proposed and therefore part of a resolution.

>
> 4.10 & 5.10: We may need more thinking about this feature. It is a cool
> idea, but again mixing resource and server status data. In case of having
> more open questions about this, I'd prefer to keep out.
>
> This is one of the reasons it is marked *at risk*.  I would assume at some
point the WG will need to decided on whether to include it.  I will check
with way we track feedback on this, other than just LC comments.

Thanks for the feedback,
Steve Speicher

>
>
> Find the full thread at http://markmail.org/thread/**c3hnbjpet4f5lxde<http://markmail.org/thread/c3hnbjpet4f5lxde>
>
> Sorry, because in the last weeks it has been a bit hard for me to find
> time for contributing the working group. Even if I have some questions, I
> can clearly say the specification has significantly evolved from the
> previous draft published.
>
> Best,
> Sergio
>
>
> On 15/07/13 20:22, Steve Speicher wrote:
>
>> In today's teleconference we agreed that we declared the latest working
>> draft [1] as ready for immediate review.  The idea is to gather enough
>> feedback by next Monday (July 22nd) to make a decision on going to Last
>> Call.  We also have published a vocabulary document [2] and HTML diff
>> (from
>> March 7th 2nd PWD) [3].
>>
>> The editors are still tweaking a few things but most items have been
>> completed.  The sooner that feedback is given the better, if the editors
>> receive a large number of comments late...we may not be able to process in
>> a timely way.
>>
>> [1] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/**raw-file/default/ldp.html<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html>
>> [2] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/**raw-file/default/ldp.ttl<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.ttl>
>> [3] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/**raw-file/default/ldp-diff-**
>> 20130715.html<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-diff-20130715.html>
>>
>> - Steve Speicher
>>
>>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Salzburg Research
> +43 662 2288 318
> Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
> A-5020 Salzburg (Austria)
> http://www.salzburgresearch.at
>