ISSUE-24: Should DELETED resources remain deleted?

remain deleted

Should DELETED resources remain deleted?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
Linked Data Platform Spec
Raised by:
Ruben Verborgh
Opened on:
2012-10-15
Description:
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-11-01#ISSUE__2d_24

RESOLVED: Close Issue-24 with the following" Delete the phrase in 4.5.1 that nsays "until ...Request URI" and adding a sentence, "Clients should note that severs may reuse a Request-URI under some circumstances."

========

Under 4.5 DELETE, the draft currently reads:

4.5.1 BPR servers must remove the resource identified by the Request-URI. After a successful HTTP DELETE, a subsequent HTTP GET on the same Request-URI must result in a 404 (Not found) or 410 (Gone) status code, until another resource is created or associated with the same Request-URI.

Isn't the creation of another resource in contradiction with Cool URIs?

I see two cases:
1. the resource is permanently gone, which should result in a 410 and it should *not* be possible to create a resource again on this URI. Otherwise, the Cool URI principle would be broken.

2. the resource is temporarily gone, which results in a 404. It should *not* be possible to create another resource on this URI, only to re-upload the same resource here (the contents of which may have changed in the meantime, but it should still be the same resource).

This raises two additional issues:
- how does the server know the DELETE is permanent?
- how does the server know the resource is the same or different?
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. LDP Rec (from eric@w3.org on 2015-02-20)
  2. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-35: POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI (from sspeiche@gmail.com on 2013-04-18)
  3. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-35: POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2013-04-18)
  4. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-35: POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI (from david@3roundstones.com on 2013-04-17)
  5. Proposal to close ISSUE-35: POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2013-04-17)
  6. Re: ldp-ISSUE-59 (recursive-delete): Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior [Linked Data Platform core] (from ashok.malhotra@oracle.com on 2013-04-05)
  7. Re: Review and Comments for Linked Data Platform FPWD (from david@3roundstones.com on 2013-03-05)
  8. Re: Review and Comments for Linked Data Platform FPWD (from sspeiche@gmail.com on 2013-03-04)
  9. Re: Aggregation: simple proposal (from tthibodeau@openlinksw.com on 2013-01-07)
  10. Re: Fwd: Aggregation: simple proposal (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2013-01-06)
  11. Fwd: Aggregation: simple proposal (from sspeiche@gmail.com on 2013-01-04)
  12. Aggregation - delegating to RDF and using PATCH. (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2012-12-19)
  13. Re: ldp-ISSUE-35 (fresh-URI): POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI [Linked Data Platform core] (from roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com on 2012-11-06)
  14. ldp-ISSUE-35 (fresh-URI): POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI [Linked Data Platform core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-11-06)
  15. Re: Edits done: ISSUE-24: Should DELETED resources remain deleted? (from sspeiche@us.ibm.com on 2012-11-05)
  16. Re: Edits done: ISSUE-24: Should DELETED resources remain deleted? (from ruben.verborgh@ugent.be on 2012-11-05)
  17. Edits done: ISSUE-24: Should DELETED resources remain deleted? (from sspeiche@us.ibm.com on 2012-11-03)
  18. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from distobj@acm.org on 2012-11-01)
  19. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from distobj@acm.org on 2012-11-01)
  20. Review and Comments for Linked Data Platform FPWD (from david@3roundstones.com on 2012-10-28)
  21. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from ruben.verborgh@ugent.be on 2012-10-22)
  22. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2012-10-22)
  23. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2012-10-22)
  24. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from ruben.verborgh@ugent.be on 2012-10-22)
  25. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from eric@w3.org on 2012-10-21)
  26. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from distobj@acm.org on 2012-10-21)
  27. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from ruben.verborgh@ugent.be on 2012-10-21)
  28. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from distobj@acm.org on 2012-10-21)
  29. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from ruben.verborgh@ugent.be on 2012-10-21)
  30. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from distobj@acm.org on 2012-10-21)
  31. RE: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from eric@w3.org on 2012-10-21)
  32. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from ruben.verborgh@ugent.be on 2012-10-21)
  33. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from distobj@acm.org on 2012-10-20)
  34. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from ruben.verborgh@ugent.be on 2012-10-20)
  35. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from distobj@acm.org on 2012-10-20)
  36. RE: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk on 2012-10-18)
  37. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2012-10-17)
  38. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from ruben.verborgh@ugent.be on 2012-10-15)
  39. Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from david@3roundstones.com on 2012-10-15)
  40. ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-15)

Related notes:

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-11-01#ISSUE__2d_24

<ericP> RESOLVED: Close Issue-24 with the following" Delete the phrase in 4.5.1 that nsays "until ...Request URI" and adding a sentence, "Clients should note that severs may reuse a Request-URI under some circumstances."

Sandro Hawke, 1 Nov 2012, 13:54:13

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-11-01#ISSUE__2d_24


<ericP> RESOLVED: Close Issue-24 with the following" Delete the phrase in 4.5.1 that nsays "until ...Request URI" and adding a sentence, "Clients should note that severs may reuse a Request-URI under some circumstances."

Sandro Hawke, 1 Nov 2012, 13:55:01

Display change log ATOM feed

Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 24.html,v 1.1 2015/08/17 04:43:07 denis Exp $