ISSUE-50: Intuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs

intuitive containers

Intuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Linked Data Platform Spec

Raised by:

Henry Story

Opened on:

2013-03-04

Description:

Currently when creating a resource by POSTing a Turtle document to a container one cannot use the following relative URIs in the POSTed content:

<.> to refer to the creating container
<sibling> to refer to a sibling of the content created
<../other> to refer to a child of the parent of this container
<sister/child> to refer to a child of a sister content created in this container

The reason one cannot use any of these URIs that are allowed by Turtle and allowed by the URI spec, is that one cannot know what the URL of the resource created by a container will be given the current definition of an LDPC. Will it have any relation at all to the container URL? Since we are in the process of creating resources, it will help a lot to know when we are dealing with containers that have those properties.

Given that we accepted "ISSUE-29: Relative URIs are crucial" we therefore need to define a Container class that makes this guarantee to the client. This can be a subclass of an LDPC or it could be a new requirement on an LDPC.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: ldp wishlist for crosscloud (from sandro@w3.org on 2014-11-10)
2. Re: ldp wishlist for crosscloud (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2014-11-10)
3. Re: ldp wishlist for crosscloud (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2014-11-10)
4. Re: ldp wishlist for crosscloud (from sandro@w3.org on 2014-11-09)
5. Re: ldp wishlist for crosscloud (from sandro@w3.org on 2014-11-09)
6. Re: ldp wishlist for crosscloud (from ashok.malhotra@oracle.com on 2014-11-09)
7. Re: ldp wishlist for crosscloud (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2014-11-09)
8. Re: Practical issues arising from the "null relative URIs"-hack - iContainers (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2014-03-31)
9. Re: Getting to closure on the remaining issues - issue-92 (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2014-01-25)
10. Re: PUT to create, was Re: Proposal: normative changes for profiles (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2013-10-03)
11. Re: PUT to create, was Re: Proposal: normative changes for profiles (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2013-10-02)
12. Re: LDP Best Practices and Guidelines review item: Use Relative URIs (from sspeiche@gmail.com on 2013-07-15)
13. Re: ISSUE-50 should be postponed (from eric@w3.org on 2013-07-09)
14. Re: ISSUE-50 should be postponed (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2013-07-09)
15. Re: ISSUE-50 should be postponed (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2013-07-09)
16. ISSUE-50 should be postponed (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2013-07-09)
17. Re: Issue 79 ldp:contains drafted (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2013-07-09)
18. Re: An IRC discussion with Alexandre Bertails re SSUE-19: (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2013-06-06)
19. Issue-51 of the open issues at risk (from Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com on 2013-06-04)
20. Open issues at risk (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2013-05-30)
21. Re: A minimalist proposal for issue-50 (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2013-03-16)
22. Re: A minimalist proposal for issue-50 (from Erik.Wilde@emc.com on 2013-03-14)
23. A minimalist proposal for issue-50 (from steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk on 2013-03-14)
24. Re: ldp-ISSUE-50 (intuitive containers): Inuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2013-03-04)
25. ldp-ISSUE-50 (intuitive containers): Inuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-03-04)

Related notes:

Display change log