- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:09:40 -0500
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <50FEB9C4.5070300@openlinksw.com>
On 1/22/13 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> . > > 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. Yes, some history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebDAV#History . Kingsley > > >> 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/ > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 16:10:14 UTC