Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

Hi Henry,

I think John's off today so I'll offer my understanding of his proposal.

In John's proposal, Container is a subclass of Aggregation so if a 
resource is a Container it is by definition also an Aggregation.

Whether a member resource gets deleted when a collection is deleted merely 
hinges on whether it is a Container (i.e., and an Aggregation) or only an 
Aggregation (i.e., and not a Container).

In either case when a member resources is deleted it is removed from the 
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

Henry Story <> wrote on 02/01/2013 12:18:26 PM:

> From: Henry Story <>
> To: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, 
> Cc:
> Date: 02/01/2013 12:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal
> Hi John,
> Reading your "Interaction Model" section, you point out that I added
> an additional constraint 
> on HTTP DELETE, namely that deleting the resource removes it from 
> the containers 
> listing.  As you seem to think it is a good idea, I wonder if one 
> should add that 
> as a new issue on its own.
> In the section "Creating a member resource"
> Issue-34:_Back_to_Basics#Creating_a_member_resource
> you have a resource that ends up being an Aggregation and a 
> Container. I don't understand how one would know how to distinguish 
> the meaning of rdfs:member in such a collection. Does the thing it 
> points to when deleted get remove from the container always? In 
> which case is there a point still to call it an Aggregation?
> Henry
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 22:01, John Arwe <> wrote:
> Not having seen any replies to [1], wondering if it got lost in the 
> shuffle.  This is the same proposal [2] mentioned on this week's 
> call for how to resolve the issue and define an interaction model 
> covering both aggregation and composition.
> [1] 
> [2]
> Best Regards, John
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 
> Social Web Architect

Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 20:51:35 UTC