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: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:19:17 -0800
Message-ID: <50C8CAA5.5040501@oracle.com>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Should we create an issue on whether containers can be members of other containers?

Re.  Issue 36 (container creation) I would like to propose that containers are created by sending
a POST to the platform URI.  This, essentially views the platform as the container of all containers
and is analogous to how resources are created as members of containers.

OTOH, if we decide that containers can contain containers then containers could be created by
a POST on the parent container.


On 12/12/2012 10:00 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Some open issues: ISSUE-26 (items created in containers), ISSUE-36 (container creation) as well as to some extent ISSUE-32 (discovery)
> ISSUE-7 was closed [*] because the other issues covered it sufficiently.
> What I think it needs is a proposal for how creation would work but it will IMO need ISSUE-37 (model) before it can be seen as solid.  At the moment, discussion of ideas and possibilities would push it (and 37) forwards.
> So what ideas are around for how to do container creation from the client?  Concrete examples of documents posted, to which URLs?
> A quite reasonable position for v1.0 is that container creation is either out-of-spec or assumed to be created by the platform implementation (only the platform can create containers). That, as I recall it, was the default position from previous discussions.
>     Andy
> [*]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Nov/0277.html
> On 12/12/12 15:59, Wilde, Erik wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2012, at 6:41, "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2012 5:50 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>> It would be great if it were included but the issues of what is being PUT (content handled differently to PUT of a resource\container) or POST to a service (not REST) do need to be covered.
>>> Can we have a discussion on this?  Do we need to create an issue?
>> this sounds issue-worthy. we need to discuss this, we need to decide, and the protocol will definitely look different one way or the other.
>> cheers,
>> dret.
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 18:19:55 UTC

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