composition and aggregation

hello ashok.

On 2013-01-29 2:21 , "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>We agree that both composition and aggregation are needed but we
>don't have agreement on mechanisms.
>http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/34
>covers a part of it.
>
>There seem to be three proposals:
>A.  Use an attribute on the collection to indicate composition or
>aggregation
>B.  Use two separate classes for composition and aggregation
>C.  Delete all members when a collection is deleted.  Use links to cover
>the
>aggregation case.

i don't see the simple proposal i made a while ago in here (or maybe it's
C?): there is no difference between aggregation or composition on the
collection level. the difference is simply in the entries: if content is
embedded, they are using "composition", if content is linked, they are
using "aggregation". members are deleted when the collection is deleted,
and depending on how clients created members, the content is deleted as
well, or it remains unaffected.

to summarize: i think we're getting on the wrong track if we start
discussions by "how do we create composition collections" and "how to we
create aggregation collections". by using the webby way of giving people
the choice to embed or link, we can elegantly cover both concepts. and the
best thing is that on the server side, we don't need to do anything. it's
all up to the client to decide how they are creating their members.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 14:24:59 UTC