Re: Aggregation: simple proposal

Hi Henry,

[[
It (An aggregation) is a resource defined inside an LDPR.
]]

According to your proposal, Can an LDP aggregation also be a LDPR itself
(rather than being a resource inside an LDPR). I think you have already
answered this indirection is not mandatory but just wanted to double check
that.

I just created a minimal example assuming that answer to the above question
is yes, can you check whether it complies with your proposal ?
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34_-_Aggregation:_simple_proposal_an_alternative_example


Few things (Just thought of mentioning as those might be important to your
implementation),

- The response to the POST must be a 201 and also you must contain the
 "Location" header instead of "Content-Location" header according the
current spec.
- The response to the delete must be one of {200,202,204} instead 410,
isn't it ?
- Just out of curiosity, in the example of creating an aggregation, when
you include the relative URI <card> it will expand to the absolute URI <
http://localhost:9000/2012/aggregate1/card> not to intended one <
http://localhost:9000/2012/card> ?

Best Regards,
Nandana

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote:

> Ok, I spend a bit of time clarifying the Aggregation Simple Proposal wiki
> page:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34_-_Aggregation:_simple_proposal
>
> It even works with my current LDP server.
>