Re: The Intuitive/ Requirement

El 01/03/13 14:40, Henry Story escribió:
>
> 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?

Hi Henry,

That was not a comment against the intuitive proposal.

My point simply was that, as you mention, it is intuitive for POSTing 
but not so intuitive for GETting.

Kind regards,

-- 

Dr. Raúl García Castro
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~rgarcia/

Ontology Engineering Group
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 36 70 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19

Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 13:51:27 UTC