Updated LDPC DELETE language and cleanup todos
authorsspeiche
Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:22:40 -0500
changeset 480 96f2d9c4a742
parent 479 c116a0ec33d8
child 481 beb136ede044
Updated LDPC DELETE language and cleanup todos
ldp.html
--- a/ldp.html	Mon Feb 10 13:25:54 2014 -0500
+++ b/ldp.html	Mon Feb 10 15:22:40 2014 -0500
@@ -1,26 +1,27 @@
 
 <!DOCTYPE html>
 <!-- 
- Editor TODO:
-   - Search "TODO" within this document.
-   - Once companion documents (best practices, primer) have URLs, link to them.  Search on "companion".
-   - Once the membership* names stabilize, take a pass through for "membership consistent value", membership-constant-URI
+	TODO: Search for them within this document.
+	TODO: Once companion documents (best practices, primer) have URLs, link to them.  Search on "companion".
+	TODO: Stabilize membership* names
+	TODO: Once the membership* names stabilize, take a pass through for "membership consistent value", membership-constant-URI
      and see if there is a friendlier way to phrase it.
-   - Paging intro: add 3rd example showing header linkage amongst pages and (HEAD on) the base resource.
+	TODO: Paging intro: add 3rd example showing header linkage amongst pages and (HEAD on) the base resource.
      Maybe also insert HEAD on base as new first example instead of relying on text alone.
-   - The ReSpec SPARQL QUERY link is http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ , which has highlighted text
-	referring readers to SPARQL 1.1.  Which normative reference do we want?
+	TODO: The ReSpec SPARQL QUERY link is http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ , which has highlighted text
+	referring readers to SPARQL 1.1.  Which normative reference do we want? http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ Ask Sandro
+	TODO: Add new "discovery of server capabilities" non-norm section
  Various pre-LC comments:
-    - 5.2.5.1 For a given triple T with a subject C of the LDPC and predicate of ldp:containsRelation, 
+    - TODO: (now 6.2.7) 5.2.5.1 For a given triple T with a subject C of the LDPC and predicate of ldp:containsRelation, 
 	  5.2.5.2 For a given triple T with a subject C of the LDPC and predicate of ldp:containedByRelation, 
 	  5.2.10 Some LDPC's have membership object's that are not directly URIs minted upon LDPC member creation, 
 	  (JohnA) I found these particularly hard to read.  And I perpetrated the SortCollation paragraphs.  
 	  Links to examples might be an 80-20 solution. 
-	- 5.3.1: I'd change the link to the example ("as in the example") to refer the concrete example #, I think example 9. 
+	- TODO: 5.3.1: I'd change the link to the example ("as in the example") to refer the concrete example #, I think example 9. 
 	  Currently does not work when printing.
  Misc during LC comments:
-    - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2013Aug/0002.html
-      #1 Should update example in 5.1.3 to be more clear on what the request vs base URI is.  Also example is missing ldp:nextPage.
+    - TODO: #1 Should update example in 5.1.3 to be more clear on what the request vs base URI is.  Also example is missing ldp:nextPage.
+       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2013Aug/0002.html
  -->
 <html>
   <head>
@@ -734,7 +735,7 @@
 		<code>PUT</code> (<a href="#ldpc-HTTP_PUT" class="sectionRef"></a>) to a LDPC, see those 
 		sections for more details.  Any server-imposed constraints on LDPR creation or update  
 		<a href="#ldpr-gen-pubclireqs">must be advertised</a> to clients.
-	<!-- TODO: movethis content into an intro/overview section and add PATCH. -->
+
 	</p>
 </section>
 
@@ -1121,7 +1122,7 @@
 		Note that LDP only requires enough from <code>OPTIONS</code> 
 		for discovery of paging support on a resource, which is considerably
 		less than is required for HTTP <code>GET</code>.  
-		This lowers server implementation effort.
+		This lowers server implementation effor	t.
 	</p>
 	
 	<!-- TODO: This section is empty - looks weird, and it is linked to from other sections -->
@@ -1566,7 +1567,7 @@
 		might have additional types</a>, like any RDF resource.
 	</h2></section><!-- Was 5.2.7 / #ldpc-5_2_7 -->
 	
-	<!-- TODO: For LDP-BC, are the empty-container props still needed or infered? -->
+
 	
 	<section id="ldpc-nordfcontainertypes"><h2 class="normal">LDPC representations SHOULD NOT use RDF container types <code>rdf:Bag</code>,
 		<code>rdf:Seq</code> or <code>rdf:List</code>.
@@ -1589,9 +1590,6 @@
 		any kind of resource identified by a URI, LDPR or otherwise.
 	</h2></section><!-- Was 5.2.3 / #ldpc-5_2_3 -->
 	
-	<!-- TODO: Leaving this as-is, refining others as-needed.  Do we need an explicit clause for "ldp:contains"?
-	  -->
-	
 	<section id="ldpc-containres"><h2 class="normal">Each <a title="Linked Data Platform Direct Container">LDP Direct Container</a>
 		and <a title="Linked Data Platform Indirect Container">LDP Indirect Container</a> representation MUST contain exactly one triple 
 		whose subject is the LDPC URI, 
@@ -1833,10 +1831,6 @@
 		through other means. 
 	</h2></section><!-- Was 5.4.2 / #ldpc-5_4_2 -->
 	
-	<!-- TODO: "contained resource" is not the right term here, an example of where ldp:containedResource would be better
-	labeled ldp:membershipResource (maybe)-->
-	<!-- TODO: Do we need a rule for creation of ldp:contains here?  Steve's answer, no...leave to ldp:contains rule. -->
-	
 	<section id="ldpc-post-createbins"><h2 class="normal"><a title="LDP server">LDP servers</a> MAY accept an HTTP <code>POST</code> of non-RDF representations 
 	<a title="Linked Data Platform Binary Resource">(LDP-BRs)</a> for
 		creation of any kind of resource, for example binary resources.  See <a href="#ldpc-post-acceptposthdr">the Accept-Post section</a> for 
@@ -1881,8 +1875,8 @@
 	<section id="ldpc-post-mincontraints"><h2 class="normal"><a title="LDP server">LDP servers</a> SHOULD allow clients to create new resources without
 		requiring detailed knowledge of application-specific constraints.
 		This is a consequence of the requirement to enable simple creation and modification of LDPRs.
-		<!-- TODO: Consider reference to 4.2.13 to include Link rel='desribedBy' header for such constraints.  
-		           Also, should this call out LDPRs explicity?  Would think we could just have "resources" statement. -->
+		<!-- TODO: Consider reference to 4.2.13 to include Link rel='desribedBy' header for such constraints. Waiting for common creating-resources section.
+		  -->
 	</h2></section><!-- Was 5.4.9 / #ldpc-5_4_9 -->
 	
 	<section id="ldpc-post-slug"><h2 class="normal"><a title="LDP server">LDP servers</a> MAY allow clients to suggest the URI for a resource
@@ -1981,8 +1975,8 @@
 	</p>
 		
 	<section id="ldpc-del-contremovesmbrtriple"><h2 class="normal">
-		When a LDPC contained resource is deleted, the LDPC server MUST also remove it from
-		the LDPC by removing the corresponding containment and membership triples.
+		When a LDPR identified by the object of a <a title="containment triples">containment triple</a> is deleted, the LDPC server MUST also remove 
+		the LDPR from the containing LDPC by removing the corresponding containment and membership triples.
 	</h2>
 	<blockquote>
 		Non-normative note: The <a>LDP server</a> might perform additional actions, 
@@ -1992,24 +1986,8 @@
 	</blockquote>
 	</section><!-- Was 5.6.1 / #ldpc-5_6_1 -->
 	
-	<!-- combined with clause above
-	<section id="ldpc-del-mbrremovesmbrtriple"><h2 class="normal">
-	When a <a>LDP server</a> successfully completes a <code>DELETE</code> request 
-		on a LDPC member resource, it MUST remove any
-		membership triples associated with the deleted member resource identified by the <code>Request-URI</code>.
-	</h2>	</section><!-- Was 5.6.2 / #ldpc-5_6_2 -->
-	
-	<!-- TODO: All these constraints apply only to LDPC contained resources being deleted, so clarify that up front of the section hey? -->
-	
-	<!-- containment now required, handled in clause above
-	<section id="ldpc-del-ldpcreated"><h2 class="normal">
-		When the conditions in <a href="#ldpc-del-contremovesmbrtriple">previous section</a> hold, and the LDPC tracks member 
-		resources that it created using the <code>ldp:contains</code> predicate, the LDPC server MUST also remove 
-		the deleted member's <code>ldp:contains</code> triple.
-	</h2></section><!-- Was 5.6.3 / #ldpc-5_6_3 -->
-	
 	<section id="ldpc-del-contremovesmbrres"><h2 class="normal">
-	When a LDPC contained resource is deleted, and the LDPC server 
+	When a LDPR identified by the object of a <a title="containment triples">containment triple</a> is deleted, and the LDPC server 
 	created an associated LDP-RR (see the <a href="#ldpc-post-createbinlinkmetahdr">LDPC POST section</a>), the LDPC server MUST also remove the associated LDP-RR it created.
 	</h2></section><!-- Was 5.6.4 / #ldpc-5_6_4 -->
 	
@@ -2057,11 +2035,12 @@
 	header whose target URI is the associated LDP-RR, and whose link relation type is 
 	<code>meta</code> [[!RFC5988]].
 	
-	<!-- TODO: Consider some improvement to this:
+	<!-- TODO: Consider some improvement to #ldpc-options-linkmetahdr
 	
 	Does a LDPC create a non-LDPR? or does and LDPC server do this?
 	What is "it" in the first sentence?
 	Adding a Request-URI clause to the last sentence may help clarify a couple things.
+	Metadata resource definition?
 	 -->
 	
 	</h2></section><!-- Was 5.9.2 / #ldpc-5_9_2 -->
@@ -2372,12 +2351,6 @@
 </section> <!-- Prefer specification -->
 <section id="prefer-examples" class="informative">
 <h3>Examples</h3>
-<!-- TODO: flesh out examples ? not sure how many we really need.
-		Ted's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jan/0136.html had:
-		none, c only, m only, m+c, all
-		separate ex's for basic, in/direct, include, exclude?
-		ex for complete absence of hint?
--->
 	<p>
 	If we assume a container like
 	the one below:
@@ -2627,6 +2600,7 @@
 <!-- <blockquote><em><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130930/">Candidate Recommendation Draft</a></em></blockquote> wah -->
 <!-- <blockquote><em><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130730/">Last Call Draft</a></em></blockquote> -->
 <ul>
+	<li>2014-02-10 - Updated LDPC DELETE language and cleanup todos (SS)</li>
 	<li>2014-02-10 - Resolved a few editoral TODO's (JA)</li>
 	<li>2014-02-08 - Put final stake in heart of 'informative' (waves to Sandro), update boilerplate for readability per Arnaud (JA)</li>
 	<li>2014-02-08 - ACTION-132: Use Prefer in place of non-member properties resource (JA)</li>