Re: ISSUE-36: Summary of ways of making containers

On 24 Jan 2013, at 20:17, Henry Story <> wrote:

> On 24 Jan 2013, at 20:04, Arnaud Le Hors <> wrote:
>> Henry Story <> wrote:
>> > ... 
>> > One could make the append rule more subtle for what I have 
>> > called ldp:Content objects that I have talked  about today:
>> > 
>> >  A POST of a graph containing the triple:
>> > 
>> >   <> a ldp:Container 
>> > 
>> > would create a new container resource. That seems 
>> > quite plausible....
>> I have to admit not to understand why you want or need to introduce so many different classes. I'm no expert in defining ontologies so maybe it's just my lack of knowledge here but for what it's worth I don't see anything in the LDP spec as it stands which prevents this behavior. It's just silent about it.
> Which class am I ontroducing here? ldp:Container is part of the spec, and that's the only one mentioned 
> in the text you quoted above.

Ah sorry, I was getting tired. Yes I wrote "One could make the append rule more subtle for
what I have called ldp:Content ...". 

The reason I created ldp:Content object and the reason I use it above, is that 
I am trying to describe the action of POSTing a graph on an ldp:Resource that 
is not an ldp:Container. Such a resource I call an ldp:Content.

ldp:Content rdfs:subClassOf ldp:Resource;
   owl:disjointWith ldp:Container .

As it happens it is important to my argument that I am not POSTing
to an ldp:Container, since that would by default create a new resource
anyway, and in this case a new ldp:Container given that the content 
posted were A

A = { <> a ldp:Container. }

What my question was about is what would happen if one were to 
POST graph A to a ldp:Resource that is not an ldp:Container, 
meaning that according to ISSUE-45 this would be an APPEND
of the triples in A to the resource posted to.

So I could keep speaking constantly like this by description of the
a resource that is not an LDPC. Instead to make things explicit
I named it: an ldp:Content.

So yes, this POST as append is currently not defined. Still the issue
remains with the PATCH that we are supposed to be implementing.
Perhaps I just jumped a bit ahead. 

But if we are not to jump ahead, then I'll make sure to shoot down any
argument that moves more than one step from the spec from now on.

>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> Social Web Architect

Social Web Architect

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 23:31:42 UTC