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

Question regarding Action 111

From: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:36:12 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJM-RdqFWTjRhap6yTDxPfV8YN4rkVPGXYBfLTdjB+KpGWLEdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Team (perhaps specifically John Arwe and Steve Speicher),

I am trying to follow up on Action 111 (
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/111 ), which was created during a
meeting I missed. This action suggests moving a stanza from the spec to the
BP doc.

>From what I can gather (although I'm not 100% sure), this is the stanza:

<!-- Action-110 removed this 2013-10-25
	4.2.9
		LDPR servers SHOULD enable simple creation and modification of LDPRs.

		It is common for LDP servers to put restrictions on representations  for
		example, the range of rdf:type predicates, datatypes of
		the objects of predicates, and the number of occurrences of
predicates in an LDPR, but

		servers SHOULD minimize those restrictions.  Enforcement of
		more complex constraints will greatly restrict the set of clients
		that can modify resources. For some server applications, excessive
		constraints on modification of resources may be required.

-->


Can you guys help me determine that I am correct in my understanding? And
if so, do you have any further input such as a suggested header and/or any
additional supporting text? In order to put it in the best practices and
guidelines, I need to justify it as such. So, I am not clear on what is the
best practice or guideline.

Is it that LDPR servers should enable simple creation and modification of
LDPR's?
Or is it that LDPR servers should minimize restrictions on the creation and
modification of LDPRs?
Or kind of an amalgamation of both?

Any additional commentary is very welcome.


-- 
Cody Burleson
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 02:37:01 UTC

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