Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

> 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.

Henry, in my head that was being covered by 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#http-delete item 
4.5.2 but I see that is a MAY.
Certainly if any issue-34 proposal that included the constraint "delete of 
member requires a side effect on the container to remove the same member's 
membership triples" were to be accepted by the WG, a spec hit to 4.5.2 
would be required.  Good catch.  It's not obvious to me that we need a 
separate issue for each spec update implied/required by accepted proposals 
... I'd say let the editor-drafting and WG-review processes run their 
course until they're proven to be inadequate.

> 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?

I realize this thing grew large enough to be just on the edge of 
group-consumable.  Simple answer is that I left that as something to be 
worked out later with 
>  i.e. treat the following questions as "to be resolved later" ...
> Which membership predicate(s) are used for each type of group. 
as an ack that your question does need to be answered.  Again, trying to 
maintain tight scope discipline in the proposal to keep it 
consumable-sized and trust that consequent questions c/would be answered 
later.  I'm reluctant to move on to those questions until we agree on the 
semantics of the terms involved at the prose level.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario