Re: Clarifying POST behavior for LDPCs.

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
> > wrote:
>
>>  Right!
>> 6.4.5 says that an LDPC can create an LDPC by using a Link header in the
>> create request
>> that specifies a LDPC.  However, the link to 6.2.8 is not useful.  So,
>> some clarification
>> is needed.
>>
>> There are also the related questions of "how do you create top-level
>> LDPCs" i.e. how do
>> you get started and how do you find all the top-level LDPCs contained in
>> a server.
>> Seems like we need a "mother of all containers" concept.
>> All the best, Ashok
>>
>
> Indeed. Moreover, as an implementer, I would also like to be able to
> define the prefix for all resources created when POST-ing to an LDPC. This
> is especially useful when clients have to create LDPCs that would in turn
> create LDPRs. The way it currently works in RWW.IO is that all new LDPRs
> have the "resource_" prefix, while new LDPCs have the "dir_" prefix. Since
> this is far from a preferred solution, I would like to add an extra triple
> to the parent LDPC, like in this minimal example of a bug tracker:
>
> <> a ldp:Container ;
>     dcterms:title "Bug tracker for project XYZ" ;
>     ldp:contains <bug_1>, <bug_2> ;
>     ldp:LDPRprefix "bug_" .
>
> I doubt this will make it into LDP 1.0, but it is something that is worth
> investigating, since the spec doesn't mention any naming conventions when
> creating new LDP(C,R)s.
>

Hi,

I was treating this in my implementation as an implementation specific
feature for the moment.  I let the client give a hint [1] to what it wants
but was planning (haven't implemented it yet) for container-specific
prefixes.

[1] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-post-slug

- Steve Speicher


> Best,
> Andrei
>
> P.S. Apologies if this has already been discussed and I missed it.
>
>
>
>>
>>  On 2/12/2014 5:18 PM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ashok,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Ashok Malhotra <
>> ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Andrei:
>>> Take a look at section 6.4.5 and see if that answers your question.
>>> All the best, Ashok
>>>
>>
>>  The links in section 6.4.5 point to section 6.2 which is about LDPC
>> GET. Moreover, section 6.2 specifies that Link headers with rel=type are
>> used in the HTTP response. The bottom line is that there is no mention of
>> those headers being used during an HTTP request. I hope I've been clearer
>> this time.
>>
>>  -- Andrei
>>
>>
>>>
>>>   On 2/12/2014 1:18 PM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>  I'm getting really close to having a working implementation on RWW.IO[1]. However, I found that the spec section that describes POST behavior
>>> for LDPCs lacks some details. More precisely, how should an LDP client
>>> create containers within a container (details below).
>>>
>>>  From section 6.4.5., we see that LDP servers that successfully create
>>> a resource from a RDF representation in the request entity body must honor
>>> the client's requested interaction model(s). More precisely, if the request
>>> header specifies an LDPC interaction model, then the server must create an
>>> LDPC.
>>>
>>>  The link to the interaction model points to section 6.2.8, which deals
>>> with GET requests -- exposing the Link header with rel=type. At this point,
>>> one can only assume that the same Link header must be present during a
>>> POST, since there is no mention in the spec about it.
>>>
>>>  My suggestion would be to either add an example in section 6.4., or
>>> explicitly mention that LDPRs and LDPCs can be created based on the Link
>>> href value present in the POST request headers (either ldp:Resource or
>>> ldp:Container).
>>>
>>>  Best,
>>> Andrei
>>>
>>>  [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations#RWW.IO
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>