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

Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:59:20 +0000
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <163F06EB-6845-4886-8145-E830A391971E@uk.fujitsu.com>
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>

Another simplistic way:

Links are created by-value or by-reference. 
If by-value, a resource is created first. 
After a link is created, it is always by-reference.

?

Roger


> > 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.
> > 
> 
> 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 15:00:16 UTC

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