Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-59 (recursive-delete): Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior from Steve Speicher on 2013-04-19 (public-ldp-wg@w3.org from April 2013)

From: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:32:23 -0400
To: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
Cc: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAOUJ7JqPNNhA7V35LVxgtTMUKXQ1EBiTzj8iXk8Jcfj9XNif3A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com> wrote:
> I prefer Henry's proposal of using ldp:contains in addition to
> ldp:membershipPredicate or ldp:membershipPredicateInverse because it
> provides a clear mechanism for properly managing resources.
>
> Without that, how would I be able to distinguish between resources that a
> container actually owns and those which it simply refers to? I would have to
> come up with some mechanism and this seems to be a reasonable one, so why
> not just go with it and make it standard?
>

What is the scenario where this distinction is needed?

--
- Steve Speicher

Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 19:32:49 UTC