Review of UC&R, Section 5

Hi Steve,

This message contains comments regarding Section 5 of the UC&R draft [1]. I provided earlier verbal feedback to the UC&R draft at the LDP WG FTF2 [2] in Boston.  

- The listed functional and non-functional requirements look sane to me and reflect, as far as I can tell, both the use cases and the current state of the specification.

- It would be handy to link each requirement to the section(s) of the specification that relate.

- F3.2 and UC3 [3] require client to retrieve the description of a hash URI.  The current specification seems to support this requirement without making any specific reference to hash URIs embedded in LDPRs.  Is this a problem or does it suggest that this requirement is currently orthogonal to the spec?  I don't object to leaving it in, but thought I should mention it.

- UC4 [4] uses the term :mens_sprint in Examples 7 and 8 without the presence of a base URI, thus making the examples invalid.  There may be other problems of this type elsewhere in the document.

- F4.2 and UC4 use the term "selective update", which I parse as synonymous with PATCH.  Is that the intention?  It would appear so based on the sentence, "The granularity of the resource would allow a user to replace the information about the award without disturbing the information about the event."  The UC&R document may need to be modified based on the result of the PATCH discussion.

I claim that this satisfies ACTION-41 [5] and have marked that action as "pending review".

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-ucr.html#requirements
[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F2
[3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-ucr.html#dfn-uc3
[4] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-ucr.html#dfn-uc4
[5] https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/41