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

Re: MKCOL for making collections

From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:58:39 -0500
Message-ID: <50FEB72F.30106@w3.org>
To: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 01/22/2013 10:52 AM, Steve Speicher wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote:
>> On 01/22/2013 10:17 AM, Steve Speicher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ISSUE-36: Can applications create new containers?
>>>>
>>>> We cannot make a collection by POSTing a doument on a collection, since
>>>> that
>>>> creates a resource. We therefore would need a different HTTP Method to do
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why can't we do this?  A Container/Collection IS a resource.  So
>>> therefore POST'ing the representation of it seems like the most
>>> obvious way to create one.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Henry's premises: this way of creating containers should
>> be discussed. The reason is that this strategy forces you to look into
>> each RDF document that is POSTed, to search for the triples saying
>> "hey, by the way, I'm an LDPC!".
>>
>> It's not that it's impossible, it's just very annoying in practice. So
>> it's at least not perfect.
>>
>> Alexandre.
>>
>
> That reasoning makes sense but doesn't avoid the case where a server
> receives a RDF document with a "new" container in it and needs to sort
> out what to make of it.  Worth discussing I agree, I see pros and cons
> to both approaches.

Using a different verb (or just something different enough from
POSTing a new LDPR), the server can at least make a choice of actions
*before* looking at the content. That's a pro.

Also in practice, the server will probably want to look at the RDF
content, to check if it's valid RDF for example. Not really a pro or a
cons, just to say that we're doomed anyway :-)

Alexandre.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> I suggest MKCOL from WebDAV, since it is already defined.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      http://restpatterns.org/HTTP_Methods/MKCOL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The content of the body, could be Triples that describe things
>>>> that can be put into the collection. As it happens that is not
>>>> defined yet it seems, so we can define it.
>>>>
>>>>     Any thoughts on that?  I'll try implementing that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like we'd have to dig into more of what the semantics of that
>>> verb says [1] but feels a little like we'd have to adapt more of
>>> WebDAV instead of just reusing the verb and giving it our own special
>>> meaning.
>>>
>>> [1] - http://www.webdav.org/specs/rfc2518.html#METHOD_MKCOL
>>>
>>>> Henry
>>>>
>>>> Social Web Architect
>>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Steve
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - Steve
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 15:59:10 UTC

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