Hi, I've just add my revision at jira:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-272#comment-13712701 On 18/07/13 21:22, Jakob Frank wrote:
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]
This was discussed quite long ago, I'd have to find the concrete issue. I disagreed on mixing metadata about the resource and about the server, but the best we got is to use "MAY" there. So I'd expect 4.4.1 will be ignored in many different implementations.
* 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]
I think the followed the simple linked list structure for representing pages.
Maybe we can suggest to add something like "The page resource representation MAY have triples with the subject of the page, predicates ldp:prevPage, ldp:firstPage or ldp:lastPageof and object being the URL for the respective pages."
* 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]
Good point.
* 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).
Those two particular parts are clearly less evolved that the other. For sure something to work on the next version.
Probably these issues were discussed lengthily in the WG, maybe someone more involved there can share some insights?
Unfortunately I missed the last calls; but maybe Nandana or Andy could provide you some more information.
If no one else has any additional comments, I think we should send these comments to the WG tomorrow.
Cheers, -- Sergio Fernández
