Re: Creation of Containers

On 7 Nov 2012, at 23:06, Nathan wrote:

> Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> On 7 Nov 2012, at 22:43, Nathan wrote:
>>> Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>>> Niclas,
>>>> Here's my (possibly flawed understanding):
>>>> On 7 Nov 2012, at 21:38, Niclas Hoyer wrote:
>>>>> is there a simple way to create a ldp container?
>>>> No, the client can't tell the server to turn a resource into a container.
>>>> The server decides what's a container, usually based on domain knowledge. A SIOC server would know that threads should be containers, and would automatically make the resource a container whenever a thread is created.
>>>> Generic servers that don't have any domain knowledge, but are “just” “dumb” graph stores, can't really use containers.
>>> By LDPR a client can PUT a representation which is considered an LDPC by any client doing a subsequent request on that LDPR.
>> 
>> That's not doing any good if the server doesn't handle POST requests on that LDPR. The server can't handle POST requests unless it has some domain knowledge -- at least it needs to know what the URIs for new resources should look like.
>> 
>>> Any "dumb" server can't stop that, can it?
>> 
>> A dumb server can't stop a client from saying anything, whether it's true or not. What's your point?
> 
> My point is that I'm here in the hope that LDP will be a spec I can use 
> for RWW, and more specifically for decentralized generic web accessible 
> data storage providers which have some level of understanding of the 
> data being used. As per the Socially Aware Cloud Storage and 
> ReadWriteWeb design issues from TimBL a few years ago.
> 
> However, the momentum of the group seems to be increasingly oriented 
> towards providing a specification which is geared towards rather limited 
> CRUD functionality for server side applications which expose (part of) 
> their API as Linked Data.

Nathan, 

I share a similar opinion - sometimes the group seems to want to do WebDAV-LD - although I am sure these are early days for the work of the group. 

however, I don't quite see how your opinion above fits with your earlier statement about not wanting to use POST. 

Roger 

> 
> I wish I could explain this further in a way that made sense to people 
> here, after all many of the people here fostered my own passion for the 
> semantic web, and the web of data.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan
>