Re: Issue-32 affordances

Hi John,

I was going through this document again to see all the affodances of a LDPC
for preparing some examples and did find a small conflict with your
document and the spec.

In the affodances document.
[[
Collection
   Add-member (existing resource) PUT/PATCH
   Remove-member  PUT/PATCH
]]

and the spec says,
[[
5.5.1 LDPC servers should not allow HTTP PUT to update a LDPC’s members; if
the server receives such a request, it should respond with a 409 (Conflict)
status code.
]]

I know it is just a SHOULD but I was just wondering whether our thinking on
this have changed. Sometimes back we had "5.2.2 a resource MUST NOT a
member more than one ldp:Container." but now after all the discussion on
aggregation/composition our position is "the same resource which is
identified by its canonical URI, may be a member of more than one
ldp:Container.". So if we encourage this, I was wondering whether 5.5.1
restriction is still relevant. WDYT ?

Best Regards,
Nandana



On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:46 PM, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Catching up on some homework.  As explained in the enclosed PDF, I'm
> thinking that we need to deal with this in smaller chunks rather than
> boiling the ocean up front.  Strawman attached to prompt discussion this
> week so that hopefully we can arrive at a consensus on the overall approach
> by next week's regular meeting.  If that occurs, I'll flesh out the next
> level down.
>
>  Best Regards, John
>
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages<http://w3.ibm.com/jct03019wt/bluepages/simpleSearch.wss?searchBy=Internet+address&location=All+locations&searchFor=johnarwe>
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
>
>