Re: Aggregation: simple proposal

On 18 Jan 2013, at 01:17, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> 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.

fixed

> - The response to the delete must be one of {200,202,204} instead 410, isn't it ?

fixed

> - 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> ?

You mean when I do the following:

POST /2012/ HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost:9000
Accept: */*
User-Agent: curl/7.27.0
Content-Length: 200
Slug: aggregate1
Content-Type: text/turtle

@prefix : <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>.

<> a :Document;
   :primaryTopic <#ag> .

<#ag> a :Aggregation;
     :member <card>,
         <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card> .

No, everything should be fine here. The relative URIs in a POST should be resolved by the server according to a resource created in the container /2012/ . This does mean then that the resource should be of the form /2012/[^/#]+ and so relative URIs will work correctly. 

But I guess this does show a very good reason to be much stricter on the naming of resources created in a container. We can get relative URIs to work much better.

Henry


> 
> 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.

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/