- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:55:05 -0500
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 01/22/2013 10:53 AM, Henry Story wrote: > > On 22 Jan 2013, at 16:35, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote: > >> On 01/22/2013 10:17 AM, Steve Speicher wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >>>> ISSUE-36: Can applications create new containers? >>>> >>>> We cannot make a collection by POSTing a doument on a collection, since that >>>> creates a resource. We therefore would need a different HTTP Method to do this. >>>> >>> >>> Why can't we do this? A Container/Collection IS a resource. So >>> therefore POST'ing the representation of it seems like the most >>> obvious way to create one. >> >> I agree with Henry's premises: this way of creating containers should >> be discussed. The reason is that this strategy forces you to look into >> each RDF document that is POSTed, to search for the triples saying >> "hey, by the way, I'm an LDPC!". >> >> It's not that it's impossible, it's just very annoying in practice. So >> it's at least not perfect. > > Thanks :-) I was just writing this up. > > Next interesting enough would be the question as to whether a link would > do to a special resource for creating a collection in your collection. > You could have > > <> ldp:createCollection <xxx> . You wouldn't do that anyway. Something like that is more appropriate: <> a ldp:container . Alexandre. > > But now what is xxx ? It cannot be something you can add attributes to > like <xxx?name=pix> to create a collection and that then you can send > a GET to. Because GET is indempotent and you'd be in danger of crawlers > creating collections all over the place. > > If is something you POST to to create a collection, then is it not > an ldp:Container? But if it is an ldp:Container then it's a bit odd > that you are POSTing to another ldp:Container, in order to create a > new container in your collection. > > My guess is that it is reasoning of that type that led to the creation > of the MKCOL method. > > >> >> Alexandre. >> >>> >>>> I suggest MKCOL from WebDAV, since it is already defined. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://restpatterns.org/HTTP_Methods/MKCOL >>>> >>>> >>>> The content of the body, could be Triples that describe things >>>> that can be put into the collection. As it happens that is not >>>> defined yet it seems, so we can define it. >>>> >>>> Any thoughts on that? I'll try implementing that. >>>> >>> >>> Seems like we'd have to dig into more of what the semantics of that >>> verb says [1] but feels a little like we'd have to adapt more of >>> WebDAV instead of just reusing the verb and giving it our own special >>> meaning. >>> >>> [1] - http://www.webdav.org/specs/rfc2518.html#METHOD_MKCOL >>> >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> Social Web Architect >>>> http://bblfish.net/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Steve >>> >>> >> >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ >
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 15:55:37 UTC