- 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