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, 11 Feb 2013 09:44:22 -0500
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB716C369.92C99480-ON85257B0F.00507FFA-85257B0F.0050F7EC@us.ibm.com>
In the proposal, 
- the behavior of DELETE against an Aggregation is simply what HTTP 
specifies, with nothing extra regarding the aggregation's members.  The 
latter is simply unconstrained.
- the behavior of DELETE against a Container is the same as for an 
aggregation, with the additional behavior that members get deleted.
That seems consistent with refinement as restriction.

I'm hardly married to the inheritance though.  It's really just a 
mechanism I used to better net things down to "what's the same vs what's 
different" between them to re-use the notion of inheritance in a somewhat 
loose way.  I'm completely open to factoring the spec differently once we 
agree on the semantics we're attempting to spec out.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario

From:   Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
To:     public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
Date:   02/08/2013 06:39 PM
Subject:        Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

Right!   But the deletion behavior is different and not inherited.
That's why is was thinking of Aggregation and Containers at the same 
All the best, Ashok 

On 2/8/2013 6:26 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: 
Hi Ashok, 

For one thing, in John's proposal POST behaves the same way with 
Containers and Aggregations, i.e., creates a resource and adds it as a 
member. This behavior is inherited. 

But the class hierarchy could probably be changed depending on what the 
group prefers.
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 02/08/2013 02:35:04 

> From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> 
> To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, 
> Date: 02/08/2013 02:36 PM 
> Subject: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal 
> John:
> In your proposal, Aggregation is a subclass of Resource and 
> Container is a subclass of Aggregation.
> I'm wondering why you did not make both Aggregation and Container a 
> subclass of Resource.
> That way they would be at the same level.
> Is there some behaviour of Aggregation that is inherited by Container?
> -- 
> All the best, Ashok
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 14:45:27 UTC

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