Re: A question about LDPR, LDP-RS, and rel="type" Link headers

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <
nmihindu@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> IIRC, in the previous LC, we had binary/text (non-RDF) resources as
> non-LDPRs but we decided to move to in to the hierarchy by giving them the
> name LDP-NR and making them a subclass of LDPR.
>
> But this has some implications on the previous restrictions. For instance,
>
> *4.2.1.4 LDP servers exposing LDPRs must advertise their LDP support by
> exposing a HTTP Link header with a target URI of
> http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>, and
> a link relation type of type (that is, rel='type') in all responses to
> requests made to the LDPR's HTTP Request-URI.*
>
> IIRC, in the previous last call we only send this header for only LDP-RS
> and not for LDP-NR (because they were at the time non-LDPR).
>
> Then in the same point, we say
>
> *The presence of this header asserts that the server complies with the LDP
> specification's constraints on HTTP interactions with LDPRs, that is it
> asserts that the resource has Etags, has an RDF representation, and so on,
> which is not true of all Web resources served as RDF media types.*
>
> Was this intentional ? In that case, do we need to have two separate
> values identify the two types like we do in containers ?
>
> Talking about containers, I think in the example 8, the Link header should
> be
> Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer>; rel="type" instead of
> Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container>; rel="type".
>
Hi,

Fixed this error, thanks for catching.


>
> Also regarding the Link header, in 5.2.1.4 we say 'The notes on the
> corresponding LDPR constraint apply equally to LDPCs.'. So does this mean a
> container should always advertise two Link headers, e.g.
>
> Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type"
> Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container>; rel="type"
>
> I find it a bit redundant as LDPC is a subclass and always a LDP-RS/LDPR
> but not an issue. Just wanted to make sure as I don't remember all the
> discussions on client inference vs overhead.
>
> I see no need to repeat these.

- Steve Speicher




> Best Regards,
> Nandana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>