Sarven Capadisli

heya @csarven, re: >A subtle point is that servers manage containment triples while clients are prohibited from managing. You also said this about `PATCH`: >Under this line of reasoning, if...

One more: Under Containers->`POST`-> interaction models, https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpc-post-createrdf notes: >A consequence of this is that LDPCs can be used to create LDPCs, if the server supports doing so. `POST` is clearly...

Aside: if LDP conformance or proper extensibility is a non-concern, then we can skip a class of discussions. Virtually anything is possible if we have open discussion and reach to...

>But then, it seems the server needs to materialize the containment triples or keep track of how a certain resource was interacted with. Already required by LDP (as per interaction...

I withdraw the `URI-Template` suggestion. Too much going on. There is a simplification to all of this but it need to only happen through `POST`. >That has somehow eluded me,...

You're on track. Needless to say, ACL is per resource. It is just that /public/ was deemed to be a convenient location out of the box for... public *stuff*. History:...

@JornWildt I didn't refer to any specific OS or their inner functionality. It was about the general notion of having a "public" read space that's close to what some systems...

If not already specified somewhere, what needs to be (better) documented is along the lines of: * storage root is set to private. * unless new containers specify their own...

As far as a "spec" is concerned, it shouldn't prescribe any location as fixed. It can of course exemplify, but the location of containers/resources, and their ACLs, for the most...

Feature requests is out of scope of 0.7. They belong in the solid/specification repository. New issues can only be about erratas to the 0.7 spec.