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

RE: Operations on containers

From: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:03:17 +0100
To: "'Arnaud Le Hors'" <lehors@us.ibm.com>, <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ac01cdae13$43a5bf80$caf13e80$@sysemia.co.uk>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnaud Le Hors [mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 19 October 2012 16:43
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Operations on containers
> 
> 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
> <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.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 

Yes, I agree that that follows - subject to the mangling of our example URIs
by our email-systems :)

Steve.
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 16:03:51 UTC

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