Re: Proposal: change following to informative - 5.2.2 thread

Hi John,

I see your point better now, and I was probably overinterpreting
"membership" here. Revert my -1 to +1.

I agree with your last point, though: Webarch is probably a better
reference than HTTP.


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:41 PM, John Arwe <> wrote:

>  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 17:20:09 UTC