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

On 31 October 2012 12:03, Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>wrote:

> Hi.
>
> 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
> >>those
> >> 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,
>

pingback is essentially follow your nose (back) after receipt of a message


> --
> 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)
>
>