Re: clarifying containment vs membership

On 02/19/2014 12:18 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> As I read the spec, it seems to me that normally a container contains 
> exactly the same resources it has as members.
>
> The one circumstance I can see where this would not be true is when 
> ldp:insertedContentRelation is used.
>
> I think this is reasonable, but I'm not at all sure I'm reading things 
> right.

To be clear, some people think I'm not.   The spec says, very cryptically:

    A LDP Direct Container or LDP Container's membership triples MAY
    also be modified via through other means.

Like what?     It also says, "LDP servers SHOULD NOT allow HTTP PUT to 
update a LDPC's membership triples", so... what are those other means.   
Is it the cases of the server violating the "SHOULD NOT"?

The spec also says cryptically:

    This ldp:contains triple can be the only link from the container to
    the newly created resource in certain cases.

which threw me off for a bit.   I think "in certain cases" should be 
replaced by "until or unless more links are made."

        -- Sandro


>   Is there some other circumstance where it's possible to have a 
> resource that is a member but is not contained, or is contained but is 
> not a member?
>
> (I guess the current spec doesn't rule out the server making these 
> sets different for its own reasons, but I think the clients can't make 
> it happen, so I'm not too worried about it.   It would probably be 
> best if servers were forbidden from doing it, too.)
>
> BTW, I have an alternative proposal for ldp:insertedContentRelation 
> (which I think has some problems), but I want to make sure I 
> understand the context before I get into that.
>
>          -- Sandro
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> |||||
> |