- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 11:33:03 +0100
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 19/10/12 18:46, Ashok Malhotra wrote: > James: > At another time, in another context I suggested a new HTTP verb (MGET to get > the metadata for a resource) and was told that there was no way that > adding a new HTTP > verb would be accepted. > > The LDP position is to use POST/PATCH/DELETE on the container to do what > you want to do > with LINK/UNLINK. > > I think it's worth listing requirements and asking how they translate to > POST/PATCH/DELETE > on the container. For example: > > 1. Create a resource and add it to a container > 2. Add an existing resource to a container > 3. Remove a resource from a container > 4. Remove a resource from a container and delete it > > Henry has provided some answers but it would be good to have them > written down, > perhaps as a table. +1 - good plan Andy > > All the best, Ashok > > On 10/19/2012 9:46 AM, James M Snell wrote: >> FWIW... this is precisely the kind of use case that has led me to >> explore the re-introduction of the LINK and UNLINK http methods. >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-link-method-01 >> >> Consider... >> >> 1) Create the item >> >> PUT /profiles/james HTTP/1.1 >> Host: example.org <http://example.org> >> ... >> >> 2) Link that item to an existing collection >> >> LINK /profiles/james HTTP/1.1 >> Host: example.org <http://example.org> >> Link: <http://example.com/my/friends>; rel="collection" >> >> 3) Link the collection to the item >> >> LINK /my/friends HTTP/1.1 >> Host: example.com <http://example.com> >> Link: <http://example.org/profiles/james>; rel="item" >> >> - James >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net >> <mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net>> wrote: >> >> >> On 19 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Ashok Malhotra >> <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com <mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>> wrote: >> >>> If I have another usecase. I have an, already created, resource >>> R which has a URI and I >>> want to put it in a container C. Is that possible >> >> it should be. >> >> you put >> >> <http://mydomain.com/foaf#me> a foaf:Person . >> >> to >> >> <http://data.fm/friends> >> >> then you would have >> >> <http://mydomain.com/foaf#me> a foaf:Person . >> >> in >> >> <http://data.fm/friends> >> >> if you PUT >> >> <#me> a foaf:Person >> >> to >> >> <http://data.fm/friends> >> >> Then you'll have that resources contain >> >> <http://data.fm/friends#me> a foaf:Person . >> >> >>> or would the conflation of >>> the container URI and resource URI prevent that? >> >> The new resource you PUT to, would now contain a metnion of the >> resource R. >> >> >>> Or would the URI of the resource in >>> the container just point to R which could have a different URI? >> >> The above should be the case. If it is not then one should open an >> issue. >> >> Henry >> >> >>> All the best, Ashok >>> >>> On 10/19/2012 9:22 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: >>>> "Steve Battle" <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk> >>>> <mailto:steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk> wrote on 10/19/2012 08:44:36 AM: >>>> >>>> > It's my understanding that The Opacity Axiom >>>> > <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque> applies >>>> only to clients >>>> > attempting to pick apart a URI, rather than to the server. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Indeed, but I'm not sure clients could live without knowing the >>>> magic involved in this scenario and even more so in the case of >>>> creating a resource using PUT. >>>> -- >>>> Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >>
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2012 10:33:34 UTC