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: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:17:12 -0500
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF665AB883.30E4113E-ON85257B0C.0053628D-85257B0C.0053F980@us.ibm.com>
> 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.
> > Not sure if we all agree, but at least IMO it is the most convenient
> > solution to ISSUE-34.
> I mean, I vote for option 3.

Putting aside for the moment that the only fleshed-out proposal that might 
correspond to 3 (I think) is Henry's... but from Ashok's email alone I 
cannot be sure if that was *his* intent, so I cannot be 100% sure what 
you're voting for with any specificity, when you say 
> > ... it is the most convenient

that statement implies that you have some utility function as input to the 
optimization problem.  Could you share your utility function's inputs 
and/or construction?  I.e. along the lines of EricP's suggestion about 
IIRC issue 37, what criteria are you using to evaluate its convenience?

We might not all equally weight convenience for spec editors, web clients, 
pick your favorite audience(s).  Indeed, the audiences with non-zero 
weight are implicitly part of the question.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 15:19:17 UTC

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