Re: issue-34 example

hi Arnaud, 

> I have to admit not to understand how your example justifies adding anything to LDP. 
> 
> The spec as it stands allows you to update resources via PUT. Why isn't it enough to PUT the new representation with the added Person?

Because there is no guidance by the server to the client in the application. It's just freestyle data update. 

> Why does your resource have to be anything special to the server rather than just another RDF resource which happens to contain references to a bunch of resources in a totally standard RDF fashion?

Completely agree. It is important that the interaction (LDP) part shouldn't 'pollute' the regular LD. 




The example was chosen as a specific illustration of issue-34. I read issue 34 text carefully, and I think that is what Richard had in mind (but, there is only one way of checking that!!). It seems that Henrys proposal introduces a new structural elements, and so I was wondering .... Henry, can your solution to issue-34 address the friend and enemy example ? 

regards,
Roger

> -
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote on 01/17/2013 02:31:18 PM:
> 
> > From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> 
> > To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, 
> > Date: 01/17/2013 02:32 PM 
> > Subject: issue-34 example 
> > 
> > 
> > Given the following LD.
> > 
> > <Person/1>
> >    :friend <Person/7>, <Person/9>
> >    :enemy <Person/6>
> > 
> > Issue-34 says it needs a simple way of linking a new friend 
> > (<Person/4>), to end up with
> > 
> > <Person/1>
> >    :friend <Person/7>, <Person/9>, <Person/4>
> >    :enemy <Person/6>
> > 
> > ? 
> > 
> > So, I believe that aggregation is an essential piece for lDP. 
> > 
> > regards, 
> > Roger