- From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:59:20 +0000
- To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 15:00:16 UTC
Another simplistic way: Links are created by-value or by-reference. If by-value, a resource is created first. After a link is created, it is always by-reference. ? Roger > > 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 15:00:16 UTC