- From: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:03:06 -0600
- To: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
- Cc: Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJM-RdqZmRcwjgrvk4uUWCL7NTPjYofk-ndkbHs1=ZEU_eB=Sw@mail.gmail.com>
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