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

ISSUE-13

From: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:51:00 -0000
Message-ID: <b8bbd928070efbe7a3ea774bd28354d4@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Thoughts in connection with ISSUE-13 raised by Raul.



According to 4.1.2, "BPR servers must provide an RDF representation for
BPRs"



1)   Does this restriction mean that BPCs can have members that are not
BPRs?



In email discussion we have talked about POSTing binary content to a
container and this content itself being the direct member of the container.
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0010.html.
These may or may not be BPRs – I don’t think its decided yet.



2)   If I update this representation [of a BPC], also updating the triples
of the members, and then I make a PUT/PATCH:
a) Are the members updated?
b) Or do I receive a 409 (Conflict) as 5.5.1 states for PUT and nothing
happens?



As you noted, section 5.5.1 states “LDPC servers should not allow HTTP PUT
to update a LDPC’s members and if the server receives such a request, it
should respond with a 409 (Conflict) status code”.



It also states that, “5.8.1 LDPC servers are recommended to support HTTP
PATCH as the preferred method for updating LDPC non-membership properties.”
By membership properties I assume it refers to properties with a membership
subject (as the subject of the triple), so I would assume that we *can* use
PATCH to insert/update triples whose subjects are members of the container
(i.e. without changing the membership itself).



My working assumption has been that the container is a convenient place to
hold metadata about a BPR (e.g. media type for POSTed binaries). So I
wouldn’t like BPC representations that include member triples ruled out.
Henry has an alternative model where the metadata of resources is held in a
separate resource (e.g. see link above, but something like
myMemberResourceURI;meta), but I wonder if this would produce an
unnecessary proliferation of resources (are these BPR’s as well?). I don’t
think either approach should be ruled out at this stage.



Steve.





--

Steve Battle
Semantic Engineer

Mobile: +44 (0)7503 624 613

E-mail: steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk
Web: www.sysemia.com



Sysemia Limited
The Innovation Centre, Bristol &  Bath Science Park, Dirac Crescent,
Emerson's Green, Bristol BS16 7FR
Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 7555456

DISCLAIMER

Information contained in this e-mail is intended for the use of the
addressee only, and is confidential and may also be privileged. If you
receive this message in error, please advise us immediately. If you are not
the intended recipient(s), please note that any form of distribution,
copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. Attachments to this e-mail may contain
software viruses which may damage your systems. Sysemia Ltd have taken
reasonable steps to minimise this risk, but we advise that any attachments
are virus checked before they are opened.
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 13:51:34 UTC

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