- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:52:47 +0000
- To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Cc: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 25 Mar 2013, at 23:54, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote: > hello richard. > > On 2013-03-25 12:21 , "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: >> Yes, in my proposal, if you want to have a large container *and* want to >> specify its order, you'd have a long rdf:List list containing all members. >> For a container of n items, specifying the order in this way takes >> approximately 2*n triples, as opposed to the 1 triple needed in the >> ldp:orderProperty approach. This is a clear downside, but worth it in my >> eyes. > > but that's only the case for the items on the current page, right? Correct. > typically, you would have shortish pages, even if your container has > millions of entries, so as long as sorting only is done and exposed on a > per-page basis, it's probably not all that costly. I suppose. OTOH, paging and sorting could be treated independently, so that servers would have the option if expressing order even for unpaged containers. I think that would be good, as an option. Richard > > cheers, > > dret. >
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 08:53:08 UTC