- From: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@topicmapping.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:14:37 +0200
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, www-ws@w3.org
Mark-- Mark Baker wrote: > > FWIW, using a RESTful approach to composition seems to simplify things > greatly. As each resource is a potential data source (via its state), > this enables composition to be described with containment relations. > For example, a description of the pipe "A | B" might be; > > <Container rdf:about="B"> > <contains/> > <Container rdf:about="A"/> > </Container> > > That doesn't say who does the binding, i.e. whether B invoked GET on A, > or A invoked POST on B, or even if C invoked GET on A and POST on B ... > but the flow (aka route) is the same in all those cases. This is very interesting. What I don't quite understand is how the containment relates to the pipe? Is your thinking that, for example' a POST to A results in a subsequent POST to B? Hmm, or would a change in A's state imply a change in B's state since B contains A? IOW, what is the relationship between resource-resource containment and resource state? Is it defined anywhere what containment of resource in resource means/implies? Wonder how that relates to the "nested containers" discussion[1] (e.g. what are the implications for list items to be contained in lists)? Anyhow, just vague thoughts.... Jan [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2003Oct/0077.html > Mark. > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca -- Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org
Received on Saturday, 11 October 2003 06:09:55 UTC