--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/ldp-ucr.html Fri Dec 14 15:26:11 2012 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html>
+ <head>
+ <title>Linked Data Platform 1.0</title>
+ <meta http-equiv='Content-Type' content='text/html;charset=utf-8'/>
+ <!--
+ === NOTA BENE ===
+ For the three scripts below, if your spec resides on dev.w3 you can check them
+ out in the same tree and use relative links so that they'll work offline,
+ -->
+ <script src='http://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common' class='remove' async></script>
+ <script class='remove'>
+ var respecConfig = {
+ // specification status (e.g. WD, LCWD, NOTE, etc.). If in doubt use ED.
+ specStatus: "ED",
+
+ // the specification's short name, as in http://www.w3.org/TR/short-name/
+ shortName: "ldp-ucr",
+ // TODO: Confirm short name
+
+ // if your specification has a subtitle that goes below the main
+ // formal title, define it here
+ // subtitle : "an excellent document",
+
+ // if you wish the publication date to be other than today, set this
+ // publishDate: "2009-08-06",
+
+ // if the specification's copyright date is a range of years, specify
+ // the start date here:
+ // copyrightStart: "2005"
+
+ // if there is a previously published draft, uncomment this and set its YYYY-MM-DD date
+ // and its maturity status
+ previousPublishDate: "2012-03-26",
+ previousMaturity: "Member-SUBM",
+ previousURI: "http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/",
+
+ // if there a publicly available Editor's Draft, this is the link
+ edDraftURI: "http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp-ucr.html",
+
+ // if this is a LCWD, uncomment and set the end of its review period
+ // lcEnd: "2009-08-05",
+
+ // if you want to have extra CSS, append them to this list
+ // it is recommended that the respec.css stylesheet be kept
+ //extraCSS: ["https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/css/respec.css"],
+
+ // editors, add as many as you like
+ // only "name" is required
+ editors: [
+ { name:"Steve Battle", url: "http://stevebattle.me",
+ company: "Sysemia Limited", companyURL: "http://www.sysemia.com" },
+ { name:"Steve Speicher", url: "http://stevespeicher.me",
+ company: "IBM Corporation", companyURL: "http://ibm.com/" }
+ ],
+
+ // authors, add as many as you like.
+ // This is optional, uncomment if you have authors as well as editors.
+ // only "name" is required. Same format as editors.
+
+ //authors: [
+ // { name: "Your Name", url: "http://example.org/",
+ // company: "Your Company", companyURL: "http://example.com/" },
+ //],
+
+ // name of the WG
+ wg: "Linked Data Platform Working Group",
+
+ // URI of the public WG page
+ wgURI: "http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp",
+
+ // name (without the @w3c.org) of the public mailing to which comments are due
+ wgPublicList: "public-ldp-wg",
+
+ // URI of the patent status for this WG, for Rec-track documents
+ // !!!! IMPORTANT !!!!
+ // This is important for Rec-track documents, do not copy a patent URI from a random
+ // document unless you know what you're doing. If in doubt ask your friendly neighbourhood
+ // Team Contact.
+ wgPatentURI: "http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/55082/status",
+ doRDFa: "1.1"
+ };
+ </script>
+ <style type="text/css">
+ div.rule {padding-top: 1em;}
+ div.ldp-issue {
+ border-color: #E05252;
+ background: #FBE9E9;
+ padding: 0.5em;
+ margin: 1em 0;
+ position: relative;
+ clear: both;
+ border-left-width: .5em;
+ border-left-style: solid;
+ }
+ div.ldp-issue-title {
+ color: #E05252;
+ padding-right: 1em;
+ min-width: 7.5em;
+ }
+ </style>
+ </head>
+<body>
+<section id='abstract'>
+A set of best practices and simple approach for a read-write Linked Data architecture, based on
+HTTP access to web resources that describe their state using RDF.
+</section>
+
+<section id='status'>
+<p>
+This document is currently under review pending release as a First Public Working Draft. While the
+editors have made every effort to identify a set of use-cases that are both evidenced in user-stories
+and in-scope of the charter, the document may yet be missing some key unidentified use-cases, or indeed, m
+ay include use-cases that ought to be removed. Furthermore, the coarse grouping of use-cases to avoid CRUDdy
+operations may not be to people's taste and is open to challenge.</p>
+<p>
+Following feedback from the face-to-face, the use-cases are captured in a narrative style that describes a behaviour, or set of behaviours drawn from user-stories. They are embellished with concrete examples drawn from representative user-stories. The aim throughout has been to avoid details of protocol (specifically the HTTP protocol), and use of any specific vocabulary that might be introduced by the LDP specification.
+</p>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<h1 id="intro">Scope and Motivation</h1>
+
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<h1 id="userstories">User Stories</h1>
+
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<h1 id="usecases">Use Cases</h1>
+
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<h1 id="reqs">Requirements</h1>
+
+</section>
+
+
+<section class='appendix informative'>
+<h2>Acknowledgements</h2>
+
+</section>
+
+<section class='appendix informative' id="history">
+<h1>Change History</h1>
+<ul>
+ <li>2012-12-14 - Initial ReSpec'ing framework for <a href="http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements">Workgroup working wiki document</a> (SS)</li>
+</ul></section>
+
+ </body>
+</html>