Re: linking from resource -> container ..

On 8 Mar 2013, at 07:22, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:

> Hi Roger, 
> Could you show us how you would modify one of the examples in the spec so that it provides what you want? 

Well, in the networth (ex.2) case, I could imagine 2 extra triples on the networth resource which link it to the two containers (using some appropriate (LDP defined?) predicate). 

Roger

> Thanks.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> 
> To:        "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, 
> Cc:        "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org> 
> Date:        03/07/2013 05:19 PM 
> Subject:        Re: linking from resource -> container .. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hi Ashok, 
> 
> >> I am referring to links which resource can use to refer it's containers - i.e. a Networth can point to it's Assets and Liabilities containers.
> > Roger, you said this on Monday's telcon also but I'm afraid I'm not getting it.
> > A link by which a resource can refer to (one of its) containers would be a URI, correct?
> 
> The Networth resource is a URI and so are the Asset and Liability children, so, yes. 
> 
> > So, how is it different from a back link?  
> 
> The "Networth" class of resources says it is composed of its "Assets" and "Liabilities". 
> So, each "Networth" is the parent to a number Asset and Liability children. 
> 
> If I de-reference a Networth resource, the representation MUST contain information how it links (through outgoing link) to these children, because through these child container resources I can manipulate the Networth resource. 
> 
> OK, if it doesn't work this way, how else do you see the spec allowing that manipulation to happen ??
> 
> Roger
> 
> > Perhaps the difference is that a backlink assumes
> > that the resource belongs to a single container and you are assuming that a resource
> > can belong to several containers -- which I'm ok with.  Is that it?
> > 
> > Ashok
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Received on Sunday, 10 March 2013 22:56:07 UTC