Re: ACTION-43 Draft use case for ordering

On 25 Mar 2013, at 23:54, "Wilde, Erik" <> wrote:

> hello richard.
> On 2013-03-25 12:21 , "Richard Cyganiak" <> 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?


> 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.


> cheers,
> dret.

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 08:53:08 UTC