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

Would we need to differentiate "direct containers" and "indirect ones" ?

From: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:10:33 +0100
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <871ugfj37a.fsf@inf-8657.int-evry.fr>
Hi.

In the definition of LDP Containers, in 5.1, we introduce what I call
"direct containers" (as in example 1) to which you can POST, and what I
call "indirect containers" as in example 2, with the help of a "POST
endpoint", which has, as a lpd:membershipSubject, the container itself.

We don't "name" this two kinds of containers differently in the
specs. Should we ?

Then, we don't name the "POST endpoint" either... whereas it seems to
remind me of the "factory" design pattern (I may be confused).

Also, it may make sense to reference the "POST endpoint" from its
lpd:membershipSubject resource, i.e. to have an inverse relation for
lpd:membershipSubject in the specs.

My suggestion would then be something like this for example 2:

# The following is the representation of
#   http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>.
@prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>.
@prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology/>.

<http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer>
   ldp:ContainerFactory
   ldp:membershipSubject <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1>;
   ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset.

<http://example.org/netWorth/nw1>
   a o:NetWorth, ldp:IndirectContainer;
   ldp:creationFactory <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer>;
   o:asset
      <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a1>,
      <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer/a2>.

Then this would mean that "direct" ldp:Containers would be subclasses of
ldp:ContainerFactory maybe ?

Does this make sense ?

To add elements to an "indirect container" (need better naming, I
guess), one POSTs to its factory, which describes how the membership
link is defined.

It diverges from the initial member submission quite a lot, I guess, but
may render the model a bit clearer ?

Am I completely smoking the pot (pot-au-feu, to be tasted in Lyon
restaurants, obviously ;-) ?

Best regards,
-- 
Olivier BERGER 
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France)
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 17:11:12 UTC

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