Re: issue-34 example

Andy, 

It seems that we will never see eye-to-eye on this :) 
I just think that what you want to do with LDP, is different from what I want to do. 

I want solutions where servers which guide my clients through a service. If it is "unfriendly week", the hypermedia directing linking with the :friend predicate shouldn't be there. Your solution is essentially allowing any data to be added. 

Would you agree ? 

I hope we can support both in LDP (I think we can). 

Roger


> POST, as it's simply additional triples:
> 
> <Person/1> :friend <Person/4> .
> 
> This follows from "Extending a database through an append operation." 
> (RFC 2616)
> 
> (it would be valuable to be explicit that POST to LDP-R is add triples)
> 
> 	Andy
> 
> On 18/01/13 00:25, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>> Hi Roger,
>> 
>> I have to admit not to understand how your example justifies adding
>> anything to LDP.
>> 
>> The spec as it stands allows you to update resources via PUT. Why isn't
>> it enough to PUT the new representation with the added Person? Why does
>> your resource have to be anything special to the server rather than just
>> another RDF resource which happens to contain references to a bunch of
>> resources in a totally standard RDF fashion?
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
>> 
>> 
>> Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote on 01/17/2013 02:31:18 PM:
>> 
>>> From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
>>> To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>,
>>> Date: 01/17/2013 02:32 PM
>>> Subject: issue-34 example
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Given the following LD.
>>> 
>>> <Person/1>
>>>   :friend <Person/7>, <Person/9>
>>>   :enemy <Person/6>
>>> 
>>> Issue-34 says it needs a simple way of linking a new friend
>>> (<Person/4>), to end up with
>>> 
>>> <Person/1>
>>>   :friend <Person/7>, <Person/9>, <Person/4>
>>>   :enemy <Person/6>
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> So, I believe that aggregation is an essential piece for lDP.
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> Roger
>