- From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:22:30 +0100
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
El 27/02/13 12:47, Henry Story escribió: [...] >> Once we have aggregate and composite containers, things are not so >> intuitive because finding a URI that ends with '/' could refer to >> an aggregate or to a composite container (which have different >> behaviour). > > yes, but I think this could just as well lead one to the opposite > conclusion, namely that the aggregation model presented recently is > not intuitive. Well, but aggregation is what we already have in the current version of the specification (Editor's Draft 27 February 2013). >> Furthermore, when using the URI of an aggregate container when >> building the resource URI (http://my.example/xxx/yoyo), if the >> aggregate container is deleted and later someone tries to access >> the container URI (http://my.example/xxx/) it will fail. > > I don't understand your point here. If have a composition container: http://my.example/xxx/ and I add a resource: http://my.example/xxx/yoyo When I remove the container then I remove the resource and I cannot access both anymore. No problem here, it is intuitive. If have an aggregation container: http://my.example/aaa/ and I add a resource: http://my.example/aaa/yoyo When I remove the container the resource is still there. I can access it: http://my.example/aaa/yoyo But if I try to follow my intuition and access its container: http://my.example/aaa/ I have an error. Kind regards, -- Dr. Raúl García Castro http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~rgarcia/ Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid Phone: +34 91 336 36 70 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 16:22:55 UTC