Re: Question regarding Action 111

Hi Cody:
I can't remember what I said earlier but let me try and reconstruct :-)
- Message is syntactically malformed
- Message fails schema validation
- Message violates semantic or application related constraints for example only one spouse in the US
All the best, Ashok

On 11/26/2013 11:03 AM, Cody Burleson wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:cody@base22.com>
> Blog: codyburleson.com <http://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>*
>
>