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

Re: Proposal: change following to informative - 5.2.2 thread

From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:41:59 -0400
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFCC4BEF8A.86D75115-ON85257BF1.0044C9CC-85257BF1.0045C3F9@us.ibm.com>
As the change of subject suggests, I'm going to fork detailed discussions 
down to 1 rule per thread so it's easier to see when each one terminates 
(hopefully in consensus).

> 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.

I wonder if you have a different concept of membership in mind, 
Pierre-Antoine.

If by membership we agree that we mean the contents of the membership 
triples, and we remember that membership triples can be changed via PATCH 
(recommended) or PUT (allowed but discouraged somewhat IIRC) on the LDPC 
(as well as by operations on the member resources in the Inverse case), 
this reduces back to "any Web resource (including LDPCs A and B) *can* 
link TO a resource R, and the link-ers may have no knowledge of one 
another".

Arbitrary incoming links is true (of web resources generally), so it was 
(and still is, to me) unclear what LDP is adding to that.


HTTP is probably the wrong reference for however, there you have a point. 
That's probably something else like WebArch.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 12:42:29 UTC

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