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

Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 09:53:16 -0500
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF09D6C806.FDC3855F-ON85257B08.00518D30-85257B08.0051C895@us.ibm.com>
> Just to be clear, there are three proposals re. aggregation vs. 
> 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 
> 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.

Ashok, I'm wondering if I'm missing something in what you're saying.  I 
see 2 as a completely separate issue (is the collection's behavior 
run-time selectable) from 1 or 3 (how many kinds of collections exist). 
Granted that 2 is only "interesting" if the WG decides that >1 kind of 
collection is covered by LDP, but it seems like a downstream question 
either way.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 14:53:52 UTC

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