ISSUE-31: Proper Conformance section for LDP spec

conformance

Proper Conformance section for LDP spec

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Linked Data Platform Spec

Raised by:

Richard Cyganiak

Opened on:

2012-11-05

Description:

Like any good spec, LDP needs a proper conformance section. The current one only has a bit of boilerplate.

It seems to me that LDP puts conformance constraints (statements involving MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc.) on two kinds of artefacts: LDP servers and LDP clients. The Conformance section should explicitly list those two as Conformance Classes.

See http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-protocol/#conformance for an example from another spec. (It's a matter of taste whether the Conformance section contains all conformance statements, or whether it only says that all conformance statements made throughout the spec apply.)

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-31 on Steve Speicher to [EDITOR] Add conformance section - due 2013-01-31, closed

Related emails:

1. LDP Rec (from eric@w3.org on 2015-02-20)
2. 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)
3. Re: AtomPub-like Slug: header (was: Re: ldp-ISSUE-31 (conformance)) (from jasnell@gmail.com on 2012-11-05)
4. Re: AtomPub-like Slug: header (was: Re: ldp-ISSUE-31 (conformance)) (from Erik.Wilde@emc.com on 2012-11-05)
5. AtomPub-like Slug: header (was: Re: ldp-ISSUE-31 (conformance)) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-11-05)
6. Re: ldp-ISSUE-31 (conformance): Proper Conformance section for LDP spec [Linked Data Platform core] (from david@3roundstones.com on 2012-11-05)
7. ldp-ISSUE-31 (conformance): Proper Conformance section for LDP spec [Linked Data Platform core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-11-05)

Related notes:

Display change log