

Re: Recharter scope

From: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:41:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOUJ7JqO=wPAeEudtO+xeWz1jWLGL5=ZR1Uhgz4dK22BMmXJAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Per our discussion on today's call I invite everyone to help develop the
> list of questions that defines the scope of the new WG we would propose to
> charter. We could change the format if we want to but that's secondary. Here
> is the updated list based on today's discussion:
> 1.        How can retrieval of a container and its contained resources be
> combined so that fewer HTTP operations are required than it is necessary
> with LDP 1.0?

> 2.        How can multiple resources be created with a single HTTP request?
+1 Perhaps though we could generalize this to "How can multiple
operations be performed in a single request?" or "How can we optimize
multiple operations, such as create?"

> 3.        How can a client request filtering what part of a resource or
> container the server is to return?
+0.1 Valuable but less of a priority

> 4.        How can a client be notified when something, such as a resource or
> set of resources, changes?
+1 Assuming we are loose in our definition of "notified" at this
point.  This doesn't assume they are pushed a notification or they
have to pull to receive the notification, right?

> 5.        How can a client find out whether a service endpoint, such as a
> SPARQL endpoint, is associated with a resource or set of resources?

> 6.        How can access to a resource be controlled?
+0 Though we access control all our resources, we really haven't had
the need to expose this as API to general clients, and therefore not a
need to standardize it.

> 7.        How can a client have greater control of how paging is done (size,
> sorting, etc.)?"

> 8.        How can a client learn what property constraints there are when
> creating or updating a resource?"

> 9.        How can we do efficient transfer of LDP resources, either some
> initial set or rolling updates (feed) of changes?
+1  Probably should amend this to say also, a way for the "cloned" set
of resources to be access controlled by the origin server.

> Please, propose changes and additions as you see fit, as well as deletions
> if you think that's appropriate.

Steve Speicher
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2014 13:42:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:59 UTC