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

Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:27:52 -0800
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB28C8576.989203BB-ON88257B06.000CBB09-88257B06.000D8A64@us.ibm.com>
Hi Ashok,

I wasn't particularly arguing for 1 as much as I was trying to answer 
Henry's questions regarding John's proposal.

I'm not sure what makes you think that "the WG was moving towards 3]. We 
only hear about a handful of people on the mailing list while the WG 
counts many more people.

This being said, I think your summary is a good highlevel descriptions of 
various options we can have a strawpoll on. We will do just that on 
Monday!

In general, I think we've had enough of general discussions and I plan to 
have a lot more strawpolls moving forward so that we can narrow down the 
discussions.

Cheers.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 02/01/2013 03:09:45 
PM:

> From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 02/01/2013 03:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal
> 
> 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 Saturday, 2 February 2013 02:28:25 UTC

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