Hi Greg, This is actually an issue [1] under discussion at the moment and the working group is making proposals [2] on how aggregate and composite behavior will be represented in LDP. Based on the resolution of this issue, most probably there will be changes in the spec to reflect the resolution. Along with that there will be editorial changes and hopefully the working draft will become more clear on this issue after that. On Section 5.2.2, I agree with you that we might need to make it little more explicit that we are talking about containment to avoid any confusion of a first-time reader. Best Regards, Nandana [1] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/59 [2] - http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-04-22#ISSUE__2d_59__3a__Reconsider_usage_of_Aggregate__2f_Composite_construct_to_get_predictable_container_delete_behavior On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:13 PM, McFall, Gregory <gregory.mcfall@pearson.com > wrote: > Thanks Henry. > I am sold that we need a clear distinction between a Container and an > Aggregation, each having different DELETE semantics. However, I would hope > that we could apply membershipSubject and membershipPredicate to either > kind of collection. > > The current working draft (7 March 2013) states, "The model for containers > follow that of two distinct types: composition and aggregation." But in > the current working draft, it is not clear how to distinguish composition > from aggregation. > > ~ Greg > >
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 16:53:06 UTC