On 21/12/12 09:33, Raffaele Palmieri wrote:
Just thinking about your playlist's example, I think that the concept of
strong containment does not seem to be correct.
Agreed - playlists are my attempt at a general example where just
containment fails. I would rather deleting a playlist did not delete
the songs from my disk.
Apart from the raised issue about container's versioning, fixed in
ISSUE-3,how does LDP manage
resources related to those that are deleted in the container, for example
with strong relationships between entities such as equality, inclusion, etc.
.?
Does it need a "super partes" container which traces all the relations
between entities? Does it need a mechanism for notification?
I don't know. In the WG discussions, I see some high level principles
but no detail and the details show or refute whether there is real
aligment of conceptual models. The details really matter here.
There may be assumption by some people that any platform link in a
container is managed - created by the container and deleted by the
container. But that leads to no additional linking and I'm not sure
that is acceptable.
I don't feel the WG, as a group, has a single view yet and there is some
way to go. The filesystem analogy on the surface is appealing but it
seems to rule out linking (or needs hidden reference counts) which isn't
very webby.
Andy
Raffaele.
On 20 December 2012 21:10, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
What do people think about LDP Containers?
The LDP-WG has debating "containers" for ages and it is still going on.
At the face-to-face they decided on "strong containment" meaning if you
delete the container, then the resources in the container also gets
deleted. That is, there is management of resources.
Links to un-managed things don't fit this model very well, if the links
are in the same LDP platform.
(think of playlists with songs from your music library in them)
Any insights here?
Andy
