- From: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:26:26 -0400
- To: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOUJ7JqsZ7iVbKN-BBjYt5PWmaf9MnNs79sKf0RQkpXSF0HLzA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya < nmihindu@fi.upm.es> wrote: > Hi, > > IIRC, in the previous LC, we had binary/text (non-RDF) resources as > non-LDPRs but we decided to move to in to the hierarchy by giving them the > name LDP-NR and making them a subclass of LDPR. > > But this has some implications on the previous restrictions. For instance, > > *4.2.1.4 LDP servers exposing LDPRs must advertise their LDP support by > exposing a HTTP Link header with a target URI of > http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>, and > a link relation type of type (that is, rel='type') in all responses to > requests made to the LDPR's HTTP Request-URI.* > > IIRC, in the previous last call we only send this header for only LDP-RS > and not for LDP-NR (because they were at the time non-LDPR). > > Then in the same point, we say > > *The presence of this header asserts that the server complies with the LDP > specification's constraints on HTTP interactions with LDPRs, that is it > asserts that the resource has Etags, has an RDF representation, and so on, > which is not true of all Web resources served as RDF media types.* > > Was this intentional ? In that case, do we need to have two separate > values identify the two types like we do in containers ? > > Talking about containers, I think in the example 8, the Link header should > be > Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer>; rel="type" instead of > Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container>; rel="type". > Hi, Fixed this error, thanks for catching. > > Also regarding the Link header, in 5.2.1.4 we say 'The notes on the > corresponding LDPR constraint apply equally to LDPCs.'. So does this mean a > container should always advertise two Link headers, e.g. > > Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" > Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container>; rel="type" > > I find it a bit redundant as LDPC is a subclass and always a LDP-RS/LDPR > but not an issue. Just wanted to make sure as I don't remember all the > discussions on client inference vs overhead. > > I see no need to repeat these. - Steve Speicher > Best Regards, > Nandana > > > > > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2014 18:26:55 UTC