- 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>
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 14:41:33 UTC
> 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