- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:03:27 +0100
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <CAD5FBDF-5A4D-4998-81F3-46457B1DA7E1@bblfish.net>
[just fixed a few typos]
Since Andy started a mail on aggregation just,
( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Dec/0110.html )
I'll put forward a default suggestion that can work with
the notion of strict containership of collections we have
settled with at TPAC2012.
1. Create a aggregation container
----------------------------------
POST your weak container to your LDPC
<> primaryTopic <#cnt> .
<#cnt> a WeakContainer;
:contains <http://remote.org/resource>,
<localRes> .
This creates a resource named say <resourceC> which defined
<resourceC#cnt> .
2. Delete your container
------------------------
send an HTTP delete message
DELETE resourceC HTTP/1.1
or change the container as below by removing the <#cnt> from <resourceC>
3. Change your container
------------------------
Say you want to remove <http://remote.org/resource> from <resourceC#cnt>
then just
PUT resourceC HTTP/1.1
...
<> primaryTopic <#cnt> .
<#cnt> a WeakContainer;
:contains <localRes> .
4 Optimisations
---------------
Define a Patch method to make it efficient to make changes.
Using SPARQL - just as an example - one could
DELETE { <#cnt> :contains <http://remote.org/resource> }
Since one does not use lists, this is really easy.
In any case it is clear that PATCH is an optimisation issue.
Henry
A short message from my sponsors: Vive la France!
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 14:04:03 UTC