--- a/ldp.html Mon Feb 25 12:21:15 2013 -0500
+++ b/ldp.html Mon Feb 25 14:55:36 2013 -0500
@@ -150,11 +150,6 @@
narrow to provide a set of key rules for reading and writing Linked
Data that most, if not all, other specifications will depend on and
implementations will support.</p>
-
- <div class="ldp-issue">
- <div class="ldp-issue-title"><a href="http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37">ISSUE-37</a></div>
- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model?
- </div>
</section>
<section>
@@ -285,7 +280,13 @@
LDPR. Clients SHOULD use the canonical URL as an LDPR's identity;
for example, when determining if two URLs refer to the same resource clients
need to compare the canonical URLs not the URLs used to access the resources.
+
+ <div class="ldp-issue">
+ <div class="ldp-issue-title"><a href="http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/49">ISSUE-49</a></div>
+ Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients
</div>
+ </div>
+
<div id="ldpr-4_1_5" class="rule">4.1.5 LDPRs SHOULD reuse existing vocabularies instead of creating
their own duplicate vocabulary terms. In addition to this general rule, some specific cases are
covered by other conformance rules.
@@ -321,6 +322,11 @@
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 class="ldp-issue">
+ <div class="ldp-issue-title"><a href="http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/44">ISSUE-44</a></div>
+ 4.1.9. is obscure or too restrictive
+ </div>
</div>
<div id="ldpr-4_1_10" class="rule">4.1.10 LDPR servers MAY support standard representations beyond those
necessary to conform to this specification. These
@@ -381,7 +387,7 @@
representations of the requested LDPR beyond those
necessary to conform to this specification, using standard HTTP content negotiation.
If the client does not indicate a preference, <code>text/turtle</code> MUST be returned.
-
+ </div>
<div id="ldpr-4_2_4" class="rule">4.2.4 In the absence of special knowledge of the application or domain, LDPR
clients MUST assume that any LDPR can have multiple values for <code>rdf:type</code>.
</div>
@@ -1216,6 +1222,7 @@
<h1>Change History</h1>
<blockquote><em>First Public Working Draft</em></blockquote>
<ul>
+ <li>2013-02-25 - Updating some simple formatting, reorganizing open issues and todos. (SS) </li>
<li>2013-02-15 - ISSUE-34 - Aggregration: 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 updated for review. (JA) </li>
<li>2013-02-13 - ISSUE-42 - 4.8 Common Properties moved to
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide#Re-use_established_linked_data_vocabularies_instead_of_.28re-.29inventing_duplicates">Deploment Guide</a>
@@ -1257,12 +1264,8 @@
editors use. They have not meaning in final product of a published working draft and will be removed prior to publishing.</p>
<ul>
<li>Insert some additional examples</li>
- <li>Expand on status code usages</li>
- <li>Editor(Steve) to consider structure based on feedback from tbl and others</li>
<li>4.1.2: "the" subject ?= Request-URI ... not always (hash URIs)
</li>
- <li>4.1.4: Location or Content-Location?
- </li>
<li>4.1.5: refers to RDF *Primer* - is that intentful?
</li>
<li>4.1.6.1: why does it have the extra .1, to avoid renumbering? should we divide General into subsections
@@ -1289,10 +1292,11 @@
</li>
<li>5.4.5: in light of the existence of server-managed properties, why not allow response body from create?
</li>
- <li>
- </li>
</ul>
-
+ <div class="ldp-issue">
+ <div class="ldp-issue-title"><a href="http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37">ISSUE-37</a></div>
+ Additional introductory text on the LDP data and interaction model
+ </div>
<div class="ldp-issue">
<div class="ldp-issue-title"><a href="http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/5">ISSUE-5</a></div>
Add a section explaining how LDP is related to Graph Store Protocol