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

Re: Question regarding Action 111

From: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:03:06 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJM-RdqZmRcwjgrvk4uUWCL7NTPjYofk-ndkbHs1=ZEU_eB=Sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
Cc: Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Steve. That sounds pretty good; I can work with that for starters.

I'm not familiar with Ashok's 3 classes of constraints, however. Ashok, if
you know what Steve is referring to, it could be helpful if you could throw
me a few bullets.

In any case, I'll start with this and if John chimes in, I'll include
include consideration for his commentary as well.

- Cody


On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Cody,
>
> Since John drafted the note/proposal [1] and then edits, he may clarify
> but I think it boils down to:
>
> 4.2.9) Move entire constraint to Best Practices. (Note: original proposal
> only hit 4.2.9 clause 1).
>
> 4.2.13) Add Best Practice: minimize number of server-specific
> constraints. Perhaps talk about Ashok's 3 classes of constraint.
>
> I think the best practice could be rewritten to be in the spirit of: When
> you open up your server to allow for writable data, for ease of integration
> and broader adoption, keep the constraints minimal (near zero) so that you
> can be able to work with a broader set of clients. Or something like that.
>
> [1] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Oct/0060.html
>
> - Steve Speicher
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Cody Burleson
Enterprise Web Architect, Base22
Mobile: +1 (214) 537-8782
Skype: codyburleson
Email: cody@base22.com
Blog: codyburleson.com

* <http://base22.com>*

*Check my free/busy time.
<http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=cody.burleson%40base22.com&ctz=America/Chicago%20>*
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 16:03:57 UTC

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