Agenda miss from today that affects Paging LC decision

Buried in the Sandro sorting email was a proposal to change how the 
relationship between each page and the sort criteria are expressed. People 
may have been implicitly saying they're OK with that, or they 
missed/ignored it ;-)  I'd like to know ASAP if anyone has objections.

Today the relationship is expressed via the triple described in [7.3.1], 
as shown in examples 17 and 18 [7.2] by adding the content pasted in below 
after the [7.2] URL.

Sandro proposed to change this to replace the 
   <?firstpage, ldp:containerSortCriteria (<#SortValueAscending>) > 
triple with a response header like 
   Link: <#SortValueAscending>, rel="ldp:containerSortCriteria"

...and then leave the contents of #SortValueAscending as-is.  In today's 
meeting we did agree to rename containerSort... to pagingSort..., but that 
could be done orthogonally.

Sandro did not articulate that the #SortValueAscending resource Must be an 
LDP-RS, but I assume that's his intent unless he proclaims otherwise.


[7.3.1] 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-paging.html#ldpc-HTTP_GET
[7.2] 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-paging.html#ldpc-informative

<?firstPage>
   ldp:containerSortCriteria (<#SortValueAscending>).

<#SortValueAscending>
   a ldp:ContainerSortCriterion;
   ldp:containerSortOrder ldp:Ascending;
   ldp:containerSortPredicate o:value.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead