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

Re: issue-34 example

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:25:26 -0800
To: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF7FAF2D8E.FFD00FBB-ON88257AF7.00011C06-88257AF7.00025489@us.ibm.com>
Hi Roger,

I have to admit not to understand how your example justifies adding 
anything to LDP.

The spec as it stands allows you to update resources via PUT. Why isn't it 
enough to PUT the new representation with the added Person? Why does your 
resource have to be anything special to the server rather than just 
another RDF resource which happens to contain references to a bunch of 
resources in a totally standard RDF fashion?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote on 01/17/2013 02:31:18 
PM:

> From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
> To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, 
> Date: 01/17/2013 02:32 PM
> Subject: issue-34 example
> 
> 
> Given the following LD.
> 
> <Person/1>
>    :friend <Person/7>, <Person/9>
>    :enemy <Person/6>
> 
> Issue-34 says it needs a simple way of linking a new friend 
> (<Person/4>), to end up with
> 
> <Person/1>
>    :friend <Person/7>, <Person/9>, <Person/4>
>    :enemy <Person/6>
> 
> ? 
> 
> So, I believe that aggregation is an essential piece for lDP. 
> 
> regards, 
> Roger
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 00:36:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:44 UTC