W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Operations on containers

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:42:33 -0700
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE69AA1C5.BC367ACD-ON88257A9C.00554816-88257A9C.00564C71@us.ibm.com>
What I mean is that if we were to decide that ownership of a resource by a 
container is determined by its URI the way Steve Battle suggests, as in:

If the resource's URI is something like this: <
http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a1>
It means it is owned by the container <
http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer>

Then it would be logical to say that if one does a PUT <
http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/alh> and that resource 
doesn't exist, it should be created and added as a member of  <
http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer> which would owned the 
resource.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote on 10/19/2012 07:59:19 
AM:

> From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 10/19/2012 08:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Operations on containers
> 
> 
> 
> On 19/10/12 15:12, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> > A logical consequence would then be to allow creating a resource 
within
> > a container using PUT in the same way.
> 
> Could you explain that?  My understanding is that PUT replaces the 
> entire contents at the target.
> 
> ---------
> PUT /foo
> Host: example.com
> 
> <> a foaf:document .
> ---------
> had better put that RDF at the requests target (adding server 
> properties) and have <> as <http://example.com/foo> or things get very 
> weird in the relationship of PUT then a GET on the same URI.
> 
>    Andy
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 15:43:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:32 UTC