...
- "an implementation MUST NOT allow PATCH to modify a LDPCv's containment triples"
This is covered for PUT in the LDP spec
Panel 5.2.4.1 LDP servers should not allow HTTP PUT to update a LDPC’s containment triples; if the server receives such a request, it should respond with a 409 (Conflict) status code.
ACTION (Andrew Woods): Update PR-244 to move SHOULD text up to LDPC, roll back other updates, and remove #ldpcvpatch section
No Format An implementation MAY <code>Allow: PATCH</code>, but if so, it SHOULD NOT permit clients to modify containment triples.
...
- https://github.com/fcrepo/fcrepo-specification/issues/245
- Work towards moving the versioning section into LDP-Next?
- Separate question of URI-R and URI-G being the same resource
- Shared sense that versioning terms should be memento terms, as opposed to ldp namespace
- ACTION (Andrew Woods): look up memento mailing list discussion on possible ontology
...
Esme to take next week's agenda
Action Items
- ACTION (Andrew Woods): Update PR-244 to move SHOULD text up to LDPC, roll back other updates, and remove #ldpcvpatch section
- ACTION (Andrew Woods): look up memento mailing list discussion on possible ontology
- ACTION (Andrew Woods): To forward the possibility of collaboration in PR-245
- we are open to moving towards the LDP spec
- ACTION (Daniel Lamb): To create PR: non-norm: LDPCv is both a timemap and a container, but does not allow POST
- ACTION (Daniel Lamb): To approve/merge PR-206
- ACTION (Esmé Cowles): To create/facilitate next week's agenda