Hi all,

these are my first comments, after I had a quick look into the draft [1]:

* LDP declares dct:modified and dct:creator as (optionally)
server-controlled (managed) properties. The dct-vocabulary is
wide-spread and used in many applications, declaring it managed will
break many of them. There is a ldp-vocabulary, why not use
ldp:modified / ldp:creator for this purpose? [Section 4.4]
* for paging (cool feature!), LDP defines links to the next page using
ldp:nextPage (and a corresponding HTTP Link-Header) to indicate the
URI of the next page. Is there a reason not to also include the links
ldp:prevPage, ldp:firstPage, ldp:lastPage? [Section 4.9]
* for a non-LDPR POSTed to the LDP server, the server may create a
corresponding LDPR. The non-LDPR may Link (HTTP-Header) to it's
associated LDPR using the "meta"-relation - why not add the also an
inverse Link (HTTP Header) using e.g. the "content"-relation? [Section
5.4]
* my general impression is that in several places (especially with
paging [Section 4.9] and inlining [Sections 4.10 and 5.10]) server
responses mix data and request-specific meta-data (e.g. navigation
links with paging, etc...). I have no alternative proposal but still
this feels somehow "soiled" (sorry, did not find a better wording).

Probably these issues were discussed lengthily in the WG, maybe
someone more involved there can share some insights?

Best
Jakob

[1] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html


On 17 July 2013 16:20, Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Nandana,
>
>
> On 17/07/13 16:13, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote:
>>
>> As of this week's telecon [1], LDP WG is planning to go for the last call
>> on 7/22 and there are some significant changes in the spec after F2F3.
>> This
>> week is for the WG members to do their final reviews. It might be a good
>> time for Marmotta devs to have a look at the spec draft [2] and see how it
>> fits Marmotta.
>
>
> I created MARMOTTA-272 exactly with that purpose. My problem in last weeks
> is the time. But for sure we should provide feedback to the spec as a
> project.
>
> If you want, we can collect there the notes, trying to provide proper
> feedback.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández

Reply via email to