Re: LDPR Interaction Model on Create

Moving this onto the right list for drafting a consensus response.

> I also have a small comment that I've been meaning to send regarding the
> interaction model.
> 
> 5.2.3.4 states that "Clients use the same syntax, that is HTTP Link
> headers, to specify the desired interaction model when creating a
> resource as servers use to advertise it on responses."
> 
> I noticed that in the primer, the POST request to an LDP-BC does not
> contain a link header expressing the type of the resource to be created.
> That also seems to be the behaviour of test suite. However, the POST
> request to an LDP-DC *contains* the Link header Link:
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type", while *none* of the
> examples in the LDP spec show a Link header being sent with POST 
requests.

THAT should be fixed, for sure.
The only way a LDP client gets predictable behavior is by specifying the 
interaction model.
That's what the examples should show, period... that which is 
interoperable.


> Oh, and one more comment -- the LDP spec does not contain any examples
> covering the creation of containers.

That is not automatically a problem. 
Shirley, the non-normative documents can cover it.
   ^ if you're too young to recognize that, see [1] 

5.2.3.4 says it's allowed.

When we gnawed on this in the past, some people were mildly against even 
acknowledging it in 5.2.3.4 on the principle that there's probably a 
bazillion or so consequences that we don't render explicit - we rely on 
implementers to be able to read specs and reason about consequences to 
some degree, or every spec would re-state all content from the transitive 
closure of all its normative references.


> In conclusion, going through the spec again, I have the feeling that it
> is heavily oriented/documented towards "read" operations where "write"
> operations look more like an afterthought.

I'm sorry, I cannot parse the concrete proposal to improve that situation 
from your quoted text.
What is missing wrt write that is not found in dependent specs?
I'll grant you that doing the sections by method has its down sides; I 
fought that battle somewhat pre-Submission and lost, so I've learned to 
live with it mostly.

I did (somewhat recently) take a stab at re-factoring "create" out as a 
section, since it has always read to me to be POST-centric.  I found in 
the end (rough figures) 12 clauses that really had to be specific to Post, 
2-3 that applied to post/put/patch, and another 1-2 that were put-only, so 
I decided benefit << effort.



[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA


Best Regards, John

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