Re: clarifying containment vs membership

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

>  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"?
>

PATCH or application specific behavior (like membership triples may just
appear, such as events in a log on the server).  I wonder if SHOULD NOT is
right after the containment resolution.  Personally I'd like to just
generalize it to say "LDP servers SHOULD NOT allow HTTP PUT to update a
LDPC but instead use PATCH." and we'd avoid other problems.


>
> 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."
>

Yes, your suggestion is better.  Thanks.

- Steve

>
>
>        -- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>