Emmet

I did indeed read all of the previous thread from the end of 2019. There was a good debate. And it seemed to be in favour of SHOULD. Then there...

I didn't interpret the conclusion in the same way but if what you are saying is what the group in that meeting meant then I agree with that. It would...

So just for clarity... The decision is not as per @TallTed interpretation? If the Content-Type is not provided on a PUT and POST then a 400 will always be returned...

Without going through it here, we already have the write up and so we know the recommendations we need to follow. But in general my thoughts on refactoring in this...

Should we also decide what the priority on doing this is relative to the other work to be done? Replacing the server and technology with another solution doesn't sound like...

The current implementation allows an acp:Rule to specify agents, groups and applications. However the intent is to extend the implementation beyond that so that a Rule could specify conditions like:...

Lots of comments there to reply to :-) Perhaps I'll start with a couple of high level statements and then I'll try to go through the content in detail and...

> Looking at this from the point of view of acp:access suggests that an ACR is its own ACR Well except an ACR doesn't have an ACR. There is a...

> But we notice now that we can no longer distinguish Policies that apply to the ldp:Resource linking to the ACR and those that apply to the ACR itself. This...

> So for example in this picture we have Tim Berners-Lee's foaf profile that links to the ACR. But now there would be no way - with only these tools...