Re: ISSUE-37: the Graph and Links model

On 13/01/13 21:32, Roger Menday wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 2013, at 21:17, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger: I think we should not restrict LDP capabilities and would
>> like to support the general case.
>
> I agree.
>
> Although I wouldn't call it the "general case". I would call it the
> "unconstrained case".
>
> Anyway, I think that the case of arbitrary graph evolution must also
> be server directed. After-all, it is the server that needs to approve
> that it able to manage an arbitrarily evolving graph (not least
> because a LDP server-side might not be built on top of a triple
> store).

Why does "on top a triple store" matter? In fact, it seems at odds with 
containers, server or client.

If the client can PUT to a new resource, it can create new LDP-R.

	Andy

>
> Roger
>
>> All the best, Ashok
>>
>> On 1/13/2013 1:08 PM, Roger Menday wrote:
>>> hi Ashok,
>>>
>>>> Can a client create collections from this root resource?
>>> Yes, when directed in the application.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask a question back to you. Are you mainly
>>> thinking of 'freestyle' applications (where a client can evolve
>>> the graph however they please), or more constrained applications
>>> ?
>>>
>>> I don't ignore the freestyle kind, but, most of my scenario's are
>>> the more  constrained variety.
>>>
>>> For example, in the Bug tracker scenario, if a Bug is to have an
>>> associated collection of Comment resources, this is something
>>> that the server sets-up for the client to follow and interact
>>> with, i.e. when a Bug resource is created, the server also
>>> provides the means for a client to discover that Comments can be
>>> created.
>>>
>>> regards, Roger
>>>
>>>> All the best, Ashok
>>>
>>>> On 1/12/2013 10:22 AM, Roger Menday wrote:
>>>>> hello there
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. "Does each LDP model have/need a service document? If
>>>>>>> yes, perhaps collections could be created by PUT on the
>>>>>>> service document?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see a need for service documents.
>>>>>> apart from the terminology "service document", i am
>>>>>> wondering how you are envisioning interactions with the
>>>>>> server for collection management, when you don't have a
>>>>>> resource that allows you to provide interaction affordances
>>>>>> for things such as, for example, the creation of
>>>>>> collections?
>>>>> the server provides a well-known 'root' resource from which
>>>>> the interaction affordances, existing resources, etc. can be
>>>>> discovered. just like on the HTML web.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger
>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks and cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dret.
>>>>>>
>>
>

Received on Sunday, 13 January 2013 22:49:04 UTC