- From: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:03:17 +0100
- To: "'Arnaud Le Hors'" <lehors@us.ibm.com>, <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Arnaud Le Hors [mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com] > Sent: 19 October 2012 16:43 > To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Operations on containers > > What I mean is that if we were to decide that ownership of a resource by a > container is determined by its URI the way Steve Battle suggests, as in: > > If the resource's URI is something like this: > <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a1 > <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a1> > It means it is > owned by the container > <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer> > <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a1> > > Then it would be logical to say that if one does a PUT > <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/alh > <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a1> > and that > resource doesn't exist, it should be created and added as a member of > <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer> > <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a1> which would > owned the resource. > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group > Yes, I agree that that follows - subject to the mangling of our example URIs by our email-systems :) Steve.
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 16:03:51 UTC