- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:38:48 -0500
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Niclas Hoyer <niclas@verbugt.de>
hello all. On 2012-11-07 13:38 , "Niclas Hoyer" <niclas@verbugt.de> wrote: >is there a simple way to create a ldp container? doing my usual "this is how AtomPub does it" comparison here. AtomPub decided not to cover this part, so creating containers is out of scope. you can find out about existing ones through service documents, but there no protocol for changing this. implementations often support container management, of course, and there are different ways to do this: - designate a magic "container of containers" which essentially works as a container factory. when you create a new member in this container, it by definition becomes a new container that is then accessible like any other container. - add a protocol for the service document, so that people can change the set of workspaces and collections. this requires a bit more work, but allows a more nuanced set of interactions, because you can not just create new collections, but also workspaces (which in AtomPub is a grouping construct for collections). i am sure you could come up with other designs as well. or you could decide not to do it and then it would be implementation-specific. in AtomPub's case, i think the reasoning was that in the majority of scenarios, clients would just interact with existing collections, and for managing collections themselves at a reasonable level of detail and functionality, the protocol would have to become quite a bit bigger, and all that additional complexity would see little coverage in most real-world scenarios. i think there is something to be said about the fact that managing collections might be a different set of use cases, and maybe should be pushed to version 2 or whatever comes after what we're currently doing. for example, it is almost certain that managing collections often will require a different level of access control and authorization, so maybe not including this scenario would allow us to keep or eyes focused on the simpler use cases of just interacting with existing collections. cheers, dret.
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 22:39:41 UTC