- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:31:04 -0500
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
hello henry. On 2013-01-22 16:53 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >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. well, that looks like a very good link to me. if the protocol defines that interactions with this resource <xxx> must POST collection representations, then any GET request simply results in a "method not allowed", and nothing bad happens. or a GET lists the recently created collections, or whatever else GET on that resource is defined to do. >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. it's what i called "collection factory" in my earlier email. i agree that it would be rather odd to POST a request to create a new container to a container, which is why i mentioned the übercontainer concept some people have invented. we also could define that this resource does not support GET at all (like mentioned above), and then we don't have this problem to begin with. it's a container factory and nothing else. cheers, dret.
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 17:31:53 UTC