- From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 09:53:16 -0500
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF09D6C806.FDC3855F-ON85257B08.00518D30-85257B08.0051C895@us.ibm.com>
> Just to be clear, there are three proposals re. aggregation vs. containment: > > 1. Two classes of resources: containers and aggregators. When a > container is deleted all its members > are deleted. When an aggregator its deleted its members are not deleted. > > 2. One class of resource with an attribute that can be set to allow > either container or aggregator > behavior > > 3. One class of resource which contains either members or links to > members. When a container is > deleted all its contents are deleted. You use links to get > aggregator behavior. > Ashok, I'm wondering if I'm missing something in what you're saying. I see 2 as a completely separate issue (is the collection's behavior run-time selectable) from 1 or 3 (how many kinds of collections exist). Granted that 2 is only "interesting" if the WG decides that >1 kind of collection is covered by LDP, but it seems like a downstream question either way. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 14:53:52 UTC