W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > December 2012

Re: I added some comments to the wiki page for ISSUE-37

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:44:32 +0100
Cc: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <69644A30-6B18-44AC-B492-2AC057181E56@bblfish.net>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>

On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:21, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:

> On Dec 10, 2012, at 19:24, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2012 2:37 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
>>>> - Can collections contain collections i.e. are collections hierarchical?
>>>>> (we may decide, no)
>>> this is a very important point.
>> I agree.  Let's see what other members of the WG feel about this issue.
>> For example, suppose for a minute that the content was RDF.  Does a hierarchical
>> collection structure map gracefully to the RDF model?
> An important point indeed!
> Hierarchies of containers are necessary in my opinion, but I can't see a good reason not to allow (MAY) a graph structure that would map cleanly to the RDF model. 
> URIs are hierarchical, and so are file systems, but links work in both systems, making graphs. 
> Does anyone have a good argument against containers within containers (I hope not). 

I am very keen on containers within containers. 

I'd like to use them
 - to be able to create tools to create user accounts on a system, each user would then be able to crete subdirectories in there
  ( eg a blogging space, a picture space etc, which could have different ACLs attached )
 - Perhaps containers in containers can be used for content negotiation. A content negotiated resources would just be a container
   that only has documents that are representations of one another.

> Regards,
> Dave
>> Ashok

Social Web Architect

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 13:45:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:42 UTC