- From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 08:08:20 +0200
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
- CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
El 16/05/13 19:19, Ashok Malhotra escribió: > Hi Raul: > Issue-57 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/57 and, perhaps, also, > Issue-32 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32 which are open, address > at least a part of the problem you are referring to. > All the best, Ashok Hi Ashok, Yes, but it addresses one sub-issue that may be simpler to close (I hope). Kind regards, > On 5/16/2013 10:25 AM, Raúl García Castro wrote: >> 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 Friday, 17 May 2013 06:08:45 UTC