- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:17:45 +0100
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 19/10/12 18:11, Henry Story wrote: > > On 19 Oct 2012, at 19:06, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: > >> Henry - where's the container? > > In the use case below the container would have been http://data.fm/ > > But thinking about it, one should not PUT a new resource into a container, > because one might overwrite something existing there before. One should really > POST it. yes - PUT replaces. But POST is overloaded now - it created a subsidiary resource in earlier discussions. How can it be used to both add an entry and creating a subsidiary? If it is making an entry, then I suggest the RDF is more like: ---- <http://example/container1> rdfs:member <http://other/existingURI> . ---- Adding an entry seems more fundamental. Andy > >> >> On 19/10/12 17:38, Henry Story wrote: >>> >>> On 19 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com >>> <mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> If I have another usecase. I have an, already created, resource R >>>> which has a URI and I >>>> want to put it in a container C. Is that possible >>> >>> it should be. >>> >>> you put >>> >>> <http://mydomain.com/foaf#me> a foaf:Person . >>> >>> to >>> >>> <http://data.fm/friends> >>> >>> then you would have >>> >>> <http://mydomain.com/foaf#me> a foaf:Person . >>> >>> in >>> >>> <http://data.fm/friends> >>> >>> if you PUT >>> >>> <#me> a foaf:Person >>> >>> to >>> >>> <http://data.fm/friends> >>> >>> Then you'll have that resources contain >>> >>> <http://data.fm/friends#me> a foaf:Person . >>> >>> >>>> or would the conflation of >>>> the container URI and resource URI prevent that? >>> >>> The new resource you PUT to, would now contain a metnion of the resource R. >>> >>> >>>> Or would the URI of the resource in >>>> the container just point to R which could have a different URI? >>> >>> The above should be the case. If it is not then one should open an issue. >>> >>> Henry >>> >>> >>>> All the best, Ashok >>>> >>>> On 10/19/2012 9:22 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: >>>>> "Steve Battle" <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk> wrote on 10/19/2012 >>>>> 08:44:36 AM: >>>>> >>>>>> It's my understanding that The Opacity Axiom >>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque> applies only to >>>>> clients >>>>>> attempting to pick apart a URI, rather than to the server. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, but I'm not sure clients could live without knowing the magic >>>>> involved in this scenario and even more so in the case of creating a >>>>> resource using PUT. >>>>> -- >>>>> Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group >>> >>> Social Web Architect >>> http://bblfish.net/ >>> >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ >
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 17:18:18 UTC