Re: The Intuitive/ Requirement

On 27 Feb 2013, at 17:22, Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> El 27/02/13 12:47, Henry Story escribió:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> Once we have aggregate and composite containers, things are not so
>>> intuitive because finding a URI that ends with '/' could refer to
>>> an aggregate or to a composite container (which have different
>>> behaviour).
>> 
>> yes, but I think this could just as well lead one to the opposite
>> conclusion, namely that the aggregation model presented recently is
>> not intuitive.
> 
> Well, but aggregation is what we already have in the current version of the specification (Editor's Draft 27 February 2013).

Oh, I am surprised that was put in, with so little support. I'll need to 
look at that closer. But I am not sure it is incompatible with the prosposition
put forward here as argued below...

> 
>>> Furthermore, when using the URI of an aggregate container when
>>> building the resource URI (http://my.example/xxx/yoyo), if the
>>> aggregate container is deleted and later someone tries to access
>>> the container URI (http://my.example/xxx/) it will fail.
>> 
>> I don't understand your point here.
> 
> If have a composition container:
>  http://my.example/xxx/
> and I add a resource:
>  http://my.example/xxx/yoyo
> 
> When I remove the container then I remove the resource and I cannot access both anymore. No problem here, it is intuitive.
> 
> If have an aggregation container:
>  http://my.example/aaa/
> and I add a resource:
>  http://my.example/aaa/yoyo
> 
> When I remove the container the resource is still there. I can access it:
>  http://my.example/aaa/yoyo
> But if I try to follow my intuition and access its container:
>  http://my.example/aaa/
> I have an error.

That says nothing against the proposal put forward here, I think. This proposal 
does  not say anything about what you can expect to GET if you deconstruct the 
path section of a URI to create new URIs.

What it says is that if you have an ldp:iContainer, and you POST something to 
it, the new resource created will have a URI following the intuitive naming
convention, which allows one to POST Turtle with relative URIs.

Presumably before POSTing such content, you would know that the URIs existed
previously. You would also know about the containers' existence by following 
links in the representations sent to you.

Does that help settle your misgiving?

Henry

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/