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

Re: Issue-51 of the open issues at risk

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:32:44 -0400
To: Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
CC: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CDD36241.127B1%erik.wilde@emc.com>
On 2013-06-04 5:14 , "Roger Menday" <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>ISSUE-51: Linking from a Resource to its Containers (not the containers
>the resource is in)
>
>I'm mostly ready to let go of that one ..
>I still think that there is something very intuitive about this link
>starting at a LDPR and ending at the LDPC. This is also reflects an
>LDPR-first thinking, which I think is the correct way. But, I can
>appreciate that in the current situation this information is provided on
>the LPDC, and it doesn't 'pollute' the domain resource with protocol
>detail ...

looking at protocol info as "pollution" makes it a bit hard to actually
build a functioning protocol, doesn't it?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6573 provides out-of-the-box standard for
this, the "collection" link relation. from a REST perspective, protocol
info isn't bad, it's your design goal. but if there is a preference to try
to separate things, then maybe using the Link header is an option for this?

but i may misunderstand which LDPR and LDPC you want to link here, and
what kind of hypermedia affordance you want to provide with this link. i
read through the issue page and still wasn't quite sure what the issue is
about. i just wanted to point out that there is a standard way to
interlink items and collections, so it may be possible to simply use it.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 16:35:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:51 UTC