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

Re: Proposal: change following to informative

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:55:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+OuRR-w8jH-Gb7A-i5_NZ81igqLTzz8fPgh6n_25i=4JnMpuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:00 PM, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>  The following are (I assert ;-) re-statements of requirements levied by
> base specs, rather than new requirements added by LDP.  Actually all 3
> editors agreed on this list after taking independent passes, so I'm making
> it a single proposal.
> If you object (-1) to any of the listed sections being changed, please
> provide the specific list in your response and we'll simply treat those
> separately.
> If you do not object (+0 or +1), either save it for a WG poll on one of
> the next meetings or (if you're sending regrets for that meeting) email to
> get your poll vote in early.
> We'd still keep the text in LDP, just remove the 2119 styling, mark
> informative, and be careful to refer to the originating spec in each case.
>  In part, this will address some of Mark Baker's comments.

(NB; the editor's draft is unreachable as I write those line; I'm usinf
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130730/, hoping the section numbers have
not changed)

I +1 to most of the proposals, except for a few ones:

> 5.2.2 - http

-1 : I don't see how HTTP says anything about LDPC membership... Plus, as I
read it, this point states that LDP clients MUST assume that multiple
membership is possible. This should stay normative.

> 5.2.6 - rdf
+0: as 4.2.2 states (normatively) that "the LDPR is typically the subject
of most triples [of its representation]", it is good to specify (also
normatively) that LDPC are an exception to that rule -- an LDP client
should not expect the description of an LDPC to only describe the LDPC.

>  5.2.7 - rdf (ONLY the portion after the comma; the first clause says
> normative)
-1 : an LDP client MUST not assume that an LDPC will have a unique type

> 5.3.1 - rdf (ONLY sentence two - any subject)

-1 : sure, RDF allows any subject in a triple; however the intent here is
to point to the fact that "membership triples" are not bound to have the
LDPC as subject

> 5.4.2 - http
-1 : I don't remember HTTP forcing the "target" of the POST to include a
link to the newly created resource... (I may have overlooked in, though, in
which case change my -1 to +1)

> 5.4.10 - atompub

-1 : LDP servers are not Atom server, so they are not (in my view)
normatively bound to comply with atompub. So borrowing something from
atompub should be normative.



>  Best Regards, John
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages<http://w3.ibm.com/jct03019wt/bluepages/simpleSearch.wss?searchBy=Internet+address&location=All+locations&searchFor=johnarwe>
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:56:02 UTC

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