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

Re: Operations on containers

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:01:58 +0100
Message-ID: <50817976.3090908@epimorphics.com>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org


On 19/10/12 16:42, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> 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>_
> <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a1>
>
> Then it would be logical to say that if one does a PUT
> <_http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/alh_
> <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a1>> and that resource
> doesn't exist, it should be created and added as a member of
>   <_http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer>_
> <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a1>which would owned the
> resource.

Thanks for the clarification.  At least we agree on the base URI.

Now what if the container is created after the resource? (mostly 
rhetorical - these are just things we need to work through, they are not 
fundamental problems)

	Andy

> --
> 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 16:02:30 UTC

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