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

Re: ISSUE-37 WAS:Proposal for containers

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 05:28:14 -0500
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD32A7D5.D3F8%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello henry.

On 2013-02-01 15:57 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>I agree. I was just putting forward what I took to be Erik Wilde's views
>there. I think he is saying, that atom functions like this
>(removing the owl:sameAs indirection ) after POSTing a binary:
>
><> a ldp:Container;
>   rdf:entry  <entry3> .
>
><entry3>   a :Entry;
>      :author <http://joe.example/#i>;
>      :id "http://atom.example/entry3";
>      :title "mouse";
>      :updated "2013-01-13T19:10:02Z"^^xsd:dateTime;
>      :content <mouse.gif> .
>
>But I don't think that this is in fact the only interpretation
>one can have of Atom. I think one could have an interpretation
>of Atom that would bring it closer to LDP.

i think that this representation is accurate, but i am not quite sure how
else you would be able to say what's happening in atompub. what's not
represented here is the fact that the mouse is managed by the server. in
atompub this would be exposed by an edit-media link that would allow
clients to edit the mouse, when following that link. for clients not
interested in editing (i.e., ignoring the edit-media link), this would
look like just another aggregated entry (i.e., they follow the link to the
mouse to GET the mouse), and that would be good enough for what they need
to do.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2013 10:29:03 UTC

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