- From: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:12:45 -0400
- To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Cc: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 09:57 -0700, Erik Wilde wrote: > 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. > I use to think the same thing; I started with the approach currently in the spec draft and found out the hard way, that it brakes in most tooling. I hope to save the ldp wg from going through the same troubles I did. James
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 17:13:13 UTC