Re: Conditional Requests to resolve semaphore and confidentiality concerns

> On 2020-01-17, at 01:23:14, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net> wrote:
> 
> On torsdag 16. januar 2020 23:38:17 CET james anderson wrote:
>>> Admittedly, I do not understand your objection very well. In particular,
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by meta-state, and therefore, I'm not sure
>>> how to translate that requirement to the Web world.
>> 
>> in this case, the meta-state is whether the store is in a state in which it
>> is to be permitted that a given process modify it.
> 
> Right, OK. What I'm trying to understand is in what sense you think about 
> integrity. 

in at least three ways:
- do all participants agree on the state of the store?
- does the state of the store agree with “internal” constraints?
- does the state of the store correspond with some “external reality”?

a crdt can afford the first.
that combined with a data model can afford the second.
how to achieve the third lies beyond the scope of deliberations about sparql.

> 
> […]
> 
> I would like to further understand the debate we're having, because I do not 
> quite understand what we are discussing at this point. Is there something 
> that would obviously blow up so that it isn't usable to anyone with this 
> approach?

if a store went through these states,

<x> <p> “start”
<x> <p> “this”
<x> <p> “start”
<x> <p> “that”

is the last state correct?

Received on Friday, 17 January 2020 08:54:28 UTC