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

Pingback, again - Was: Re: Use-Cases and call for help to add descriptions and scenarios.

From: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:03:45 +0100
To: "Wilde\, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "public-ldp-wg\@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <87txta7vji.fsf@inf-8657.int-evry.fr>

About maintaining links in a (decentralised) Web :

"Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> writes:

> hello arnaud.
> On 2012-10-03 11:53 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>IBM has been struggling with the concept of two way relationships such as
>>describes+describedby. While it's convenient to have two links so you can
>>navigate from one resource to the other in either direction, maintaining
>> links adds a significant amount of pain and constraints.
> absolutely agreed. but there's nothing that tells you that you should
> actually store and manage those links. after all, all that we're talking
> about is how we can exchange representations that expose those
> relationships, and in many cases, these should be computed.
> but then again, if you talk about decentralized architectures, then the
> describedby links and described links will be manage by different
> authorities anyway, and in that case, there's no management problem (other
> than potentially broken links, but that's just a fact of life on the web).
>>This is clearly not the way the web of documents works. Anyone can add
>>links from their web page to other pages without expecting or requiring
>>reciprocity. This makes the web much more agile and resilient. But when
>>it comes
>> to data people tend to expect reciprocity and sometimes find
>>unidirectional links unacceptable.
> well, i certainly make links from my web pages to other pages
> unidirectionally, but then there's an amazing bunch of machinery out there
> crawling my page and inferring the backwards link, and then monetizing it.
> so yes, bidirectionality is not required, but in many scenarios, you have
> use cases for using established links in both directions, even though
> these may be served and consumed by different kinds of agents.

At some point back in august (in Message-ID:
<87zk5f2q6h.fsf@inf-8657.int-evry.fr>) I asked about whether "PingBack
mechanisms" were something to consider for LDP...

In the case where containers get "external" resources added to them
(aggregation, weak links, etc.), I think it would be quite interesting
to consider that eventually these resources could get notified that they
just got added to a LDP C.

Similarly, when a resource gets deleted, the container could be notified
about that to eventually remove it from its members.

Does it make sense wrt the LDP scope ?

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 Wednesday, 31 October 2012 11:04:29 UTC

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