Re: More comments on Primer

Hi again,

I have updated the Primer with the proposed changes. Please let me know
if it's OK with you, Nandana.

-- Andrei

On 3/25/15 3:20 PM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
> Hi Nandana,
> 
> On 3/23/15 5:13 PM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote:
>> Hi Andrei,
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback!
>>
>> Regarding the first comment, we discussed that in the list sometimes
>> back but I didn't take any follow up action. Now reading rest of the
>> emails from the thread "LDPR Interaction Model on Create", I think it is
>> reasonable to go for this change. So if no one objects, you can go ahead
>> with the change (if not I can do it in ACTION-158),
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Oct/0018.html
> 
> Thanks, I will do the change myself.
> 
>>
>> Regarding the second comment, isn't that case covered in "Section 2.7
>> Structural Manipulation (Child Containers)"?
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-primer/ldp-primer.html#structural-manipulation-child-containers
> 
> I see. I wonder if we could make it more explicit. I suppose that could
> also be the reason why I didn't find the example in the first place.
> Should I prepare a text and/or discuss this with your offline?
> 
> -- Andrei
> 
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Nandana
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Andrei Sambra <andrei@w3.org
>> <mailto:andrei@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     After reading the primer again, I would also like to make a couple of
>>     comments.
>>
>>     First comment.
>>     --------------
>>
>>     The example in section 2.3 "Creating a RDF resource (POST an RDF
>>     resource to an LDP-BC)" shows how a POST to a container creates a new
>>     resource in it.
>>
>>     However, it does not indicate what type of resource is supposed to be
>>     created, since no Link header is present in the request. To me, the
>>     request should be following the client interaction model described in
>>     the LDP spec (section 5.2.3.4). One reason why I am trying to push for
>>     an explicit interaction is that POST should not by default create member
>>     resources. We should try to avoid overloading the semantics for a
>>     "blank" POST to a Container, in case we or someone else would like to
>>     use POST for a different interaction.
>>
>>     For that reason, I suggest adding the appropriate Link header to the
>>     example:
>>
>>     POST /alice/ HTTP/1.1
>>     Host: example.org <http://example.org>
>>     Slug: foaf
>>     Content-Type: text/turtle
>>     Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type"
>>
>>
>>     Second comment (related).
>>     -------------------------
>>
>>     There are no examples showing how to create containers! Is there any
>>     chance we can have at least one example? Again, the only difference
>>     between creating a resource and a container lies in the Link header
>>     being sent -- e.g. to create a "pictures" container under
>>     http://example.org/alice/, one could do the following:
>>
>>     POST /alice/ HTTP/1.1
>>     Host: example.org <http://example.org>
>>     Slug: pictures
>>     Content-Type: text/turtle
>>     Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#BasicContainer>; rel="type"
>>
>>
>>     Please let me know if you think these are reasonable changes. I suppose
>>     I can take an ACTION and submit the changes myself, since I'm proposing
>>     them.
>>
>>
>>     Best,
>>     Andrei Sambra
>>
>>
>>
>>
>