Hi Andy, I agree that LDP W3C specs have to define high level principles for implementing the major part of data exchange's patterns on objects that could be either LDPR or LDPC: in this way, much freedom will be given to implementors regarding communication between LDPR/LDPC servers that's the most difficult part to address, specially initially, when different linked data server's implementations need to communicate, otherwise there would be the risk to have LDPC silos not yet ready to interoperate. That said, I think that Marmotta can be a good starter project for addressing that low-level issues, doing some more concrete reasonings about that. On the occasion, I wish all of you Happy New Year :) Raffaele. On 22 December 2012 19:10, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >>> >>> >> >
