Fwd: Re: Do we need transaction support in LDP?

Forwarding  note from Melvin Carvalho

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Do we need transaction support in LDP?
Date: 	Thu, 9 May 2013 19:16:00 +0200
From: 	Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: 	ashok.malhotra@oracle.com <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>






On 9 May 2013 15:43, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com <mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>> wrote:

    Do we need transaction support in LDP?  One of the big features of LDP wrt to the
    rest of the Web is that it is read/write.  If clients can update information then we need
    to say something about transaction support.   This could be along the lines of the note
    on Access Control.

    BTW, I have not seen any comments on my latest suggestion re. Access Control.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0109.html
    Please take a look and comment.


Hi Ashok

IMHO Access Control and Transactions are critical to the effectiveness of LDP.  We've spent many years looking at this topic in the RWW CG, and previously, on the foaf protocols mail list.

Some comments:

- Im unsure openID is an ideal fit, as im not sure it handles identity the same way as LD

- Transactions are a big topic.  A system like bitcoin has an innovative approach to ensuring synchronization of a data store to prevent race conditions

- I'm sure you have reviewed much of the work on ACLs but here's one that you may have missed

http://ns.bergnet.org/tac/0.1/triple-access-control.html

If anyone at the LDP WG wanted to the RWW CG infrastructure to publish notes, guides, or wiki posts, Id be very happy to help out.  In any case, we will try and add your findings to our existing documentation.

    -- 
    All the best, Ashok