- From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:25:56 +0200
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Dear all, The current specification does not impose any absolute (MUST) restriction on LDPR representations. Therefore, "almost" any server returning text/turtle and satisfying some other protocol restrictions would be an LDP-conformant server. Besides, it is difficult for a client to discover if a server or its resources are LDP or not; therefore, it is difficult to know their behaviour (e.g., that linked resources can de dereferenced). Proposal: To require, similarly as for LDPCs, that LDPR representations are typed (i.e., "The representation of a LDPR MUST have rdf:type of ldp:Resource, but it MAY have additional rdf:types."). Kind regards, -- Dr. Raúl García Castro http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~rgarcia/ Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid Phone: +34 91 336 36 70 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 14:26:23 UTC