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

Re: claimed completion of ACTION-97 - proposal for pure-HTTP paging

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:48:49 -0700
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3F2A2006.302F11FB-ON88257BEF.0070BFCA-88257BEF.0072559A@us.ibm.com>
Thanks Eric for completing your action.

I note that the URL you suggest we use to type the resource as a page is 
inconsistent with what we currently have for LDP Resources:

http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Page vs http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource


I don't personally have a strong opinion as to which style is better but I 
would argue we need to have consistency.

By the way, are Page resources LDPRs? When retrieving a page do I get both 
type headers?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


"Eric Prud'hommeaux" <ericw3c@gmail.com> wrote on 09/21/2013 06:40:57 PM:

> From: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 09/21/2013 06:42 PM
> Subject: claimed completion of ACTION-97 - proposal for pure-HTTP paging
> Sent by: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <ericw3c@gmail.com>
> 
> Find the <PROPOSAL/> 44 lines down.
> 
> TimBL's comment LC-2836 proposed moving page control out of the body
> of an LDPR and into headers.
> <https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/2836?cid=2836>
> 
> This buys us:
>   • Potential reuse outside of LDPRs.
>   • Unrestricted data in an LDPR (screw case: an LDPR which includes a
>     page from another LDPR).
> 
> The first example in the LDP LC decribes how a GET on <resourceURL>
> 303's (now 208½'s?) to e.g. <resourceURL>?firstPage, or OPTIONS on
> <resourceURL> yields:
>   Link: <resourceURL>?firstPage; rel="first"
> The content of <resourceURL>?firstPage includes client data plus this
> paging data:
> 
> [[
> <http://example.org/customer-relations?firstPage>
>    a ldp:Page;
>    ldp:pageOf <http://example.org/customer-relations>;
>    ldp:nextPage <http://example.org/customer-relations?p=2>.
> ]] <http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpr-PagingIntro> (can we have an anchor
>    on the <div class="example"/> elements?)
> 
> The paging in this example is a singly-linked list split across HTTP
> and the payload. We can move it all into HTTP (for the reasons above)
> using link types defined in RFC5988 Web Linking:
> 
> first      - An IRI that refers to the furthest preceding resource in a
>              series of resources.
> last       - An IRI that refers to the furthest following resource in a
>              series of resources.
> previous   - Refers to the previous resource in an ordered series of
>              resources
> next       - Refers to the next resource in a ordered series of 
resources.
> 
> The type arc can come from RFC6903 Additional Link Relation Types:
> type      - Refers to a resource identifying the abstract semantic
>             type of which the link's context is considered to be an
>             instance.
> 
> 
> <PROPOSAL>
> • GETs and OPTIONS on <resourceURL> remain the same.
> 
> • GET/HEAD on <resourceURL>?firstPage returns purely user content with:
>     Link: http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Page; rel=type
>     Link: <resourceURL>?page2; rel=next
> 
> • Lack of a Link: rel=next means you're at the end (closed HTTP world).
> 
> • GET/OPTIONS on "doubly-linked servers" return an addtional last linl:
>   Link: <resourceURL>?page2; rel="last"
> 
> • GET/HEAD on <resourceURL>?page2 on "doubly-linked servers" includes
>     Link: <resourceURL>?firstPage; rel=previous
> </PROPOSAL>
> 
> 
> I prefer these link types to others in the IANA registry:
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml>
> 
> RFC6903 Additional Link Relation Types:
> about      - Refers to a resource that is the subject of the link's 
context.
> 
> RFC6573 The Item and Collection Link Relations:
> collection - The target IRI points to a resource which represents the
>              collection resource for the context IRI.
> item       - The target IRI points to a resource that is a member of
>              the collection represented by the context IRI.
> 
> POWDER:
> describedBy
> RFC6892 The 'describes' Link Relation Type:
> describes
> 
> RFC6906 The 'profile' Link Relation Type:
> profile    - Identifying that a resource representation conforms to
>              a certain profile, without affecting the non-profile
>              semantics of the resource representation.
> -- 
> -ericP
> 

Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 20:49:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:44 UTC