Re: Aggregation: simple proposal

Hi Erik,


>  totally agreed that firm terminology is a good thing. but there's no need
> to assume that we need different protocol "parts" for both things. in
> atompub, there is no separation of containers, there is only one
> container, and what you POST determines whether it's self-contained or
> not. if the POSTed resource contains all data (<content>...</content> in
> XML), it's what we now call "composition". if the POSTed resource contains
> a link to "external content" (<content src=""/> in XML), it's what we now
> call "aggregation". i think that this is a good way of handling these
> variations, but it's certainly not the only one. in case we're going this
> way, there would only be one type of container, and the data model for
> members would optionally allow a link to external member content. it's a

simple solution and works well. the beauty is that the server doesn't even
> need to care; it's blindly storing what you POST to it. only clients
> GETting a resource need to know that for a linked resource, they also need
> to GET the linked content to get the full member information.
>


So if we put that idea into an example in the context of LDP, do you mean
something like this where ldp:contains indicates aggregation

@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>.
@prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>.
@prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology/>.

<http://localhost/cnt1>
    a ldp:Container;
    rdfs:member  <http://localhost/cnt1/a1>;
    ldp:contains <http://external/resource> .

<http://localhost/cnt1/a1>
   a ldp:Stock;
   o:value 10000.

I have several questions in mind but as I am quite positive that what you
meant is not exactly like this so I will keep them for later.

Best Regards,
Nandana