Re: LDP Agenda for December 17, 2012, with a list of issues to be closed

I agree these are good questions but I don't think the answer is just yes 
or no. They depend on the model you're talking about:

With the composition model adopted in Lyon, the answers are:

> Can a LDPR belong to more than one container?

No.

> When a container is deleted do are all its members deleted also?

Yes.

> I 
> think we have agreement that all members may be deleted or they may 
> not be deleted.  We need a mechanism to specify which: perhaps an 
> attribute on the container called DeleteMembers yes/no

No, in the composition model this is built-in. Member resources always get 
deleted when their container is deleted.

Now, with an aggregation model these answers can change. In the simplest 
form, it could be something like this:

> Can a LDPR belong to more than one container?

Yes.

> When a container is deleted are all its members deleted also?

No.

As it was pointed out though, there is nothing stopping you from 
implementing this at the application level because it doesn't require any 
special handling by the server. This is why we decided in Lyon to focus on 
composition.

> I 
> think we have agreement that all members may be deleted or they may 
> not be deleted.  We need a mechanism to specify which: perhaps an 
> attribute on the container called DeleteMembers yes/no

As I said before if people want to define a standard way of doing 
aggregation then a proposition needs to be put forward. Whether it is done 
by reusing the same type of containers, using flags or something like 
that, or by introducing a new type of containers altogether is totally 
open at this point.

> Can a client create containers?
>  I believe the WG sentiment is running to YES
> Can containers be members of other containers?  I believe the WG 
> sentiment is running to YES

These are independent questions, which I agree we need to answer in any 
case.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote on 12/14/2012 04:01:37 PM:

> From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
> To: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, 
> Cc: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" 
> <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 12/14/2012 04:04 PM
> Subject: Re: LDP Agenda for December 17, 2012, with a list of issues
> to be  closed
> 
> Hi all,

> On Dec 14, 2012, at 18:51, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> 
wrote:

> To make progress, I think we need to agree on a few fundamental 
> features of the model.
> 
> +1. Thanks for this, Ashok. 
> 
> Let me list what I see in an effort to help the discussion on Monday.

> Can a LDPR belong to more than one container?  If yes, then we need 
> to specify how a LDPR that already exists is added to a container.
> 
> Yes for me.  The relationship is just a link in the container 
> metadata, so it is no big deal, I think. 
> When a container is deleted do are all its members deleted also?  I 
> think we have agreement that all members may be deleted or they may 
> not be deleted.  We need a mechanism to specify which: perhaps an 
> attribute on the container called DeleteMembers yes/no
> 
> Hmm. I agree that use cases will vary so both should be supported or
> at least allowed. Maybe this is over-specifying?
> 
> Can a client create containers?  I believe the WG sentiment is running 
to YES
> 
> Yes from me. 
> 
> Can containers be members of other containers?  I believe the WG 
> sentiment is running to YES
> 
> Yes from me. 
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> What did I miss?
> All the best, Ashok 
> 
> On 12/14/2012 2:12 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: 
> Hi Askok, 
> I'd be more than happy to discuss the model but I'm really not sure 
> we can have a very constructive conversation without a concrete 
> proposal to look at. 
> 
> For now, Erik created a wiki page [1] and invited people to try and 
> describe what model they think we should have. I'm sorry to see that
> very little has been added to it (I know you did). Without this, 
> again, I'm afraid we can spend a lot of time talking without 
gettinganywhere.
> 
> I also think this is a very important issue (as you may remember I 
> was one of the first people to raise it in the first place) but 
> looking at our list of open issues it's clear to me that some are 
> quite independent of the model and we could at least make some 
> progress in addressing those. 
> 
> Let's discuss this on Monday's call and see if we can come up with a
> plan on how to move forward. 
> Regards. 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37 
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 12/14/2012 01:41:49 
PM:
> 
> > From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> 
> > To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> > Date: 12/14/2012 01:43 PM 
> > Subject: Re: LDP Agenda for December 17, 2012, with a list of issues
> > to be  closed 
> > 
> > Arnaud:
> > On Monday's call can we have a discussion of the model?
> > I think we need to settle this basic issue before we go further.
> > If you like, I can send you a list of questions or you can find them 
in the
> > mail thread. 
> > All the best, Ashok 
> > 
> > On 12/14/2012 1:22 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: 
> > Hi folks, 
> > The agenda for Monday is available. Per last week's discussion, it 
> > lists 5 specific issues to be discussed, with a proposal on how to 
> > close them. Check them out! 
> > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.12.17
> > --
> > Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group