- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:57:25 -0700
- To: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
- CC: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
hello james. On 2013-03-14 9:52 , James Leigh wrote: > On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 09:43 -0700, Erik Wilde wrote: >> it's not the client's thing to decide on URIs for new resources, at >> least in the usual case. servers manage the URI namespace and assign >> URIs for new resources. clients may suggest URIs (well, mostly certain >> path components of them) using HTTP Slug, but they cannot depend on the >> server actually using these components. > Sure, but there is nothing wrong with the client suggesting the URI to > use in the posted RDF model itself. The server is under no obligation to > accept the RDF as-is. you're right that the server could rewrite the request RDF (maybe based on the Slug URI also provided) and thus transform the suggested RDF into the actual RDF being persisted. i think this works on a technical level, but i think it would be a rather odd way of handling things. but that's certainly just my personal view. cheers, dret.
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 16:57:54 UTC