W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-59 (recursive-delete): Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior

From: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:04:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJM-RdpBaheeN-xRexzao0c8JLEDWGeVtXL3OAeQvRvN2f3+tA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>

If I DELETE a container, I expect all children of the container to be
deleted also, but not aggregate members. In order for the server to have
the logic to do that, I need some indication of what's a direct "real"
member of the container and what is only a reference. What other indication
or technique might I use, if not for ldp:contains ?

- Cody

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Cody Burleson
Enterprise Web Architect, Base22
Mobile: +1 (214) 702-6338
Skype: codyburleson
Email: cody@base22.com
Blog: codyburleson.com

* <http://base22.com>*
*Check my free/busy

(image/gif attachment: base22.gif)

Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 22:04:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:46 UTC