Re: Indirect Containers

[moved to the WG mailing list, since we're all in the WG.]

On 10/13/2014 03:26 PM, David Wood wrote:
> Um, I believe that Callimachus now passes all the Indirect Container tests. We submitted a revised implementation report that hasn’t been posted yet.
>
> Please don’t remove Indirect Containers.

David, I'm wondering if you can make the case to me and the other 
doubters in the WG for Indirect Containers.   I haven't heard any 
stories yet of people wanting to make and use LDP containers full of 
Non-Information-Resources (ie using Indirect Containers).   My instinct 
is that doing so is more of an intellectual exercise than something 
which practical software engineers would have reason to do.   My 
instinct is also that it's conceptually rather more complicated to work 
with than one would want in a production deployment.

I know you and your team are, in fact, practical software engineers who 
work in a production environment, so I'm hoping you can share your 
reasoning/experience here.   What classes of resources do you put in 
Indirect Containers?  What ldp:insertedContentRelation predicates have 
you been using?  What are the application semantics to being in the 
container?  (IE, how do applications respond when the triples change as 
they do in response to an HTTP DELETE of the resource, etc.)

Thanks!

      -- Sandro


> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2014, at 14:40, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
>
>> There was a discussion today that the Indirect Containers may be removed because
>> the 2 implementations don't pass all the tests.
>>
>> Which tests do they not pass?
>> Do those implementations think they'll get it done in the next week? If not when?
>>
>> Henry Story
>>
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 20:37:43 UTC