ldp.html
changeset 182 08403f15f875
parent 181 1bd6eacbb5a6
child 183 910467cc58eb
--- a/ldp.html	Wed Jul 10 11:45:09 2013 -0400
+++ b/ldp.html	Wed Jul 10 15:15:59 2013 -0400
@@ -367,22 +367,10 @@
 		set explicitly.  This makes the representations much more useful to
 		client applications that don’t support inferencing.
 	</div>
-	<div id="ldpr-4_1_7" class="rule">4.1.7 LDPRs MUST use at least one RDF triple to represent a link
-		(relationship) to another resource. In other words, having the source
-		resource’s URI as the subject and the target resource’s URI as the
-		object of the triple representing the link (relationship) is enough and
-		does not require the creation of an intermediate link resource to
-		describe the relationship.
-	</div>
-		
-	<div class="ldp-issue-closed">
-	<div class="ldp-issue-title"><a href="http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/44">ISSUE-44</a></div>
-	4.1.9.(now 4.1.7) is obscure or too restrictive
-	</div>
 	<div id="ldpr-4_1_8" class="rule">4.1.8 LDPR servers MAY support standard representations beyond those
 		necessary to conform to this specification. These
 		could be other RDF formats, like N3 or NTriples, but non-RDF formats
-		like HTML [[!HTML401]] and JSON [[!RFC4627]] would be likely be common.
+		like HTML [[!HTML401]] and JSON [[!RFC4627]] would likely be common.
 	</div>
 		
 	<div id="ldpr-4_1_9" class="rule">4.1.9 LDPRs MAY be created, updated and deleted using methods not defined in
@@ -1952,6 +1940,7 @@
 <blockquote><em><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130701/">Third Public Working Draft</a></em></blockquote>
 -->
 <ul>
+	<li>2013-07-10 - ISSUE-44 move section 4.1.7 (relationships are simple RDF links) to guidance (SS)</li>
 	<li>2013-07-10 - ISSUE-72 take 2 - added ldp:MemberSubject to handle default case (SS)</li>
 	<li>2013-07-10 - ISSUE-72 adding 5.2.10 for ldp:membershipObject (SS)</li>
 	<li>2013-07-09 - ISSUE-58 inlining - actions 87-89 inclusive  (JA)</li>