- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:58:39 -0500
- To: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 01/22/2013 10:52 AM, Steve Speicher wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, 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. >> >> Alexandre. >> > > That reasoning makes sense but doesn't avoid the case where a server > receives a RDF document with a "new" container in it and needs to sort > out what to make of it. Worth discussing I agree, I see pros and cons > to both approaches. Using a different verb (or just something different enough from POSTing a new LDPR), the server can at least make a choice of actions *before* looking at the content. That's a pro. Also in practice, the server will probably want to look at the RDF content, to check if it's valid RDF for example. Not really a pro or a cons, just to say that we're doomed anyway :-) 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 >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > - Steve >
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 15:59:10 UTC