W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2013

Re: We need to step up to database functionality

From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:29:22 -0500
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF45D0DD85.21DC7D5A-ON85257C19.00496D7C-85257C19.004A19EF@us.ibm.com>
> But I want to touch on a broader issue.  With LDP we allow multiple 
> users access to a web resource,
> and some of these users may be able to update the resource or some 
> part of it.  

All of the above is equally true with HTTP, no?  With or without RFC 5005.

> This takes us into
> database territory but we have steadfastly chosen to ignore 
functionality like

A database is a reasonable implementation.  So is (as has been pointed out 
by TimBL several times) a Unix file system.

> - access control

I see nothing LDP-specific here.  This is an HTTP-level issue.

> - transactions

The HTTP request is the transaction.

> - locking

The HTTP request is the transaction.
There is no spoon.

> We need to consider these because it will come back and bite us in 
> the butt when, for example, users'
> updates are partially reflected (transactions).

Etags and PATCH.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 14:41:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:46 UTC