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

Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:09:45 -0500
Message-ID: <510C4B39.1040009@oracle.com>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Hi Arnaud:
Just to be clear, there are three proposals re. aggregation vs. containment:

1. Two classes of resources: containers and aggregators.  When a container is deleted all its members
are deleted.  When an aggregator its deleted its members are not deleted.

2.  One class of resource with an attribute that can be set to allow either container or aggregator
behavior

3. One class of resource which contains either members or links to members.  When a container is
deleted all its contents are deleted.   You use links to get aggregator behavior.

You are arguing for 1.  correct?  I thought the WG was moving towards 3.

All the best, Ashok

On 2/1/2013 3:45 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Hi Henry,
>
> I think John's off today so I'll offer my understanding of his proposal.
>
> In John's proposal, Container is a subclass of Aggregation so if a resource is a Container it is by definition also an Aggregation.
>
> Whether a member resource gets deleted when a collection is deleted merely hinges on whether it is a Container (i.e., and an Aggregation) or only an Aggregation (i.e., and not a Container).
>
> In either case when a member resources is deleted it is removed from the collection.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
>
>
> Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 02/01/2013 12:18:26 PM:
>
> > From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> > To: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS,
> > Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
> > Date: 02/01/2013 12:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Reading your "Interaction Model" section, you point out that I added
> > an additional constraint
> > on HTTP DELETE, namely that deleting the resource removes it from
> > the containers
> > listing.  As you seem to think it is a good idea, I wonder if one
> > should add that
> > as a new issue on its own.
> >
> > In the section "Creating a member resource"
> > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/
> > Issue-34:_Back_to_Basics#Creating_a_member_resource
> >
> > you have a resource that ends up being an Aggregation and a
> > Container. I don't understand how one would know how to distinguish
> > the meaning of rdfs:member in such a collection. Does the thing it
> > points to when deleted get remove from the container always? In
> > which case is there a point still to call it an Aggregation?
> >
> > Henry
> >
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 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 aggregation and composition.
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jan/0330.html
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34:_Back_to_Basics
> >
> > Best Regards, John
> >
> > Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
> > Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
> >
> > Social Web Architect
> > http://bblfish.net/ 
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 23:10:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:29 UTC