దామోదర
దామోదర
> It attempts to address the following issues (and possibly other related ones): > > - https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/347 > - https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/22 > - https://github.com/solid/web-access-control-spec/issues/93 There are two orthogonal issues here. One...
> Given the existance of the mapping, as explained above, this danger is avoided: HTTP programs can simply continue to use the corresponding (mapped) URI. They do not need to...
Also there are semantic differences between client-id and webid of an app. `WebId` being identifier for the agent, whether being as an app or person, that identity is unique `name`...
Also one single app with name `Image transcriber app` can be registered with multiple oidc poviders. (Ascan be seen in current practice, sign-in-with google/github/twitter), each system assigning different client-id, secret...
See also: - #400 - #399
[Manas](https://github.com/manomayam/manas/) currently does the following: - Allows a custom rdf representation for creating/updating a container using `POST` on parent, or `PUT`/`pATCH` targetting own uri. - It validates the incoming representation...
> @elf-pavlik: I agree that the broader discussion about URI semantics being necessary is better to be addressed outside of this issue. For this issue, we probably should assume it...
@woutermont , I think you are missing the point. No where in spec says it's sufficient. For they `are not, and cannot be sufficient`. It's not opinion. For, say two...
> [t]here is a 1-1 correspondence between containment triples and relative reference within the path name hierarchy." That expresses `necessary` condition for uri semantics. That is, at any time, *the...
> [t]here is a 1-1 correspondence between containment triples and relative reference within the path name hierarchy." Also plz note that, it talks as `containment-triples` as matter of fact. That...