W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 05:17:07 -0500
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD3152FF.EA7F%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello john.

On 2013-01-31 22:01 , "John Arwe" <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>Not having seen any replies to [1], wondering if it got lost in the
>shuffle.  This is the same proposal [2] mentioned on this week's call for
>how to resolve the issue and define an interaction model covering both
> and composition.[1]
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34:_Back_to_Basics

when you say that in aggregations, there is a separate GET for "non-member
properties", are you referring to properties of members that are not
specified by LDP? if so, why would you split members this way? we can
cleanly specify which properties we regard as being meaningful in the
context of LDP, and then when you GET a member, those ones which are
specified as being meaningful for LDP can be identified, and all the other
ones are the ones which i think you were referring to. but i may have
misunderstood the term to begin with. did i?


Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 10:18:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:45 UTC