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

Re: issue-34 example

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:36:14 +0000
Message-ID: <50FC2B0E.60509@epimorphics.com>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org


On 20/01/13 12:02, Roger Menday wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> It seems that we will never see eye-to-eye on this :)
> I just think that what you want to do with LDP, is different from what I want to do.
>
> I want solutions where servers which guide my clients through a service. If it is "unfriendly week", the hypermedia directing linking with the :friend predicate shouldn't be there. Your solution is essentially allowing any data to be added.
>
> Would you agree ?

I agree that I want LDP to support adding arbitrary data.  May not be 
the only usage and some implementations may not allow the opertation 
(thay can always refuse anything).

>
> I hope we can support both in LDP (I think we can).

I hope so - I'm having difficulty seeing what state manipulations you 
have in mind.  Do you have a concrete example?

Isn't the only state is the RDF of a LDP-R?  A unique characteristic 
here is that an LDP has no hidden/implicit state?

	Andy

>
> Roger
>
>
>> POST, as it's simply additional triples:
>>
>> <Person/1> :friend <Person/4> .
>>
>> This follows from "Extending a database through an append operation."
>> (RFC 2616)
>>
>> (it would be valuable to be explicit that POST to LDP-R is add triples)
>>
>> 	Andy
>>
>> On 18/01/13 00:25, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>>> 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 Sunday, 20 January 2013 17:36:44 UTC

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