Re: Proposal for collections

Thanks for the clarification Ashok.

Given past confusion, I think it would be clearer if proposals about (container) composition and (RDF) aggregation were kept entirely separate.
Is it possible to disentangle them?

Steve.

On 30 Jan 2013, at 00:50, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:

> Steve:
> My bad -- I used the word collection when I should have used container.
> 
> It is about both composition and aggregation.  E and F address that.
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> On 1/29/2013 7:25 PM, Steve Battle wrote:
>> Ashok,
>> I'm just seeking clarification here (no relevant issues are referenced in the subject line or body text).
>> 
>> 1) Is this proposal about composition (the model), or aggregation?
>> 2) Is a collection the same thing as a LDP container?
>> 
>> Steve.
>> 
>> On 29 Jan 2013, at 21:14, Ashok Malhotra<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> I think we are converging, so I'm writing this up as a proposal for collection
>>> handling.
>>> 
>>> 3. Can collections contain collections?
>>> 
>>> A. Yes, collections contain collections
>>> Collections are LDPRs and should
>>> be added to collections like any other LDPR.
>>> 
>>> B. To add a collection to a collections, POST a (child) collection
>>> representation to a (parent) collection.
>>> 
>>> C. Thus, a collection can contain a mix of members and collections.
>>> Some of the members may be links to LDPRs
>>> 
>>> D. If you GET all members of a
>>> collection that is nested, you get all the contents, members and collections
>>> at the top level.  That is, you do not get nested members.
>>> 
>>> E. If you delete a collection you delete everything it contains.  For nested collections
>>> this leads to a cascaded delete.
>>> 
>>> F. If you do not want a member to be deleted when the collection is deleted,
>>> do not include the member in the collection but rather include a link to the
>>> member in the collection.
>>> 
>>> I realize that E and F are controversial.  If you disagree.  Please indicate which
>>> parts of the proposal you disagree with.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> All the best, Ashok
>>> 
>>

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 09:07:08 UTC