W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: ACTION-43 Draft use case for ordering

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:52:47 +0000
Message-Id: <E83EE218-55E9-4A1B-9EFD-01D25E518ED2@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
On 25 Mar 2013, at 23:54, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:

> hello richard.
> 
> On 2013-03-25 12:21 , "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>> Yes, in my proposal, if you want to have a large container *and* want to
>> specify its order, you'd have a long rdf:List list containing all members.
>> For a container of n items, specifying the order in this way takes
>> approximately 2*n triples, as opposed to the 1 triple needed in the
>> ldp:orderProperty approach. This is a clear downside, but worth it in my
>> eyes.
> 
> but that's only the case for the items on the current page, right?

Correct.

> typically, you would have shortish pages, even if your container has
> millions of entries, so as long as sorting only is done and exposed on a
> per-page basis, it's probably not all that costly.

I suppose. OTOH, paging and sorting could be treated independently, so that servers would have the option if expressing order even for unpaged containers. I think that would be good, as an option.

Richard



> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 08:53:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:38 UTC